The Supreme Court said key questions arise over validity of Fact-Check Units targeting misleading news about the government online, with Chief Justice Surya Kant stressing the need to balance regulation and constitutional values while referring the matter to a three-judge bench.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court remarked that significant questions arise regarding the validity of Fact-Check Units (FCUs) proposed to identify false or misleading news about the government on social media and online platforms.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi indicated that certain online platforms behave in a dangerously harmful manner, underscoring the need for clear guidelines.
While scheduling the matter for consideration by a three-judge Bench, CJI Kant noted,
“The question is of paramount importance and it is better the Supreme Court lays down the law. It is about balancing without compromising the constitutional values,”
ALSO READ: IT Rules Amendment on ‘Fact Check Units’ Struck Down by Bombay HC: 5 Reasons
The Court was reviewing an appeal from the Central government that challenges the Bombay High Court’s September 2024 decision, which struck down the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, specifically Rule 3. This rule granted the Central government the authority to establish FCUs aimed at identifying false or misleading news regarding the government.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking for the Central government, asserted,
“There is no intent to suppress any humour, satire, or critique.”
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing stand-up comic Kunal Kamra, who had previously contested the validity of FCUs in the High Court, stated,
“It is about fact-check units and proper rules need to be framed. Blocking rules are there… Section 69 is there.”
CJI Kant pointed out the actions of certain online platforms, remarking,
“The way some of these platforms are acting. See some of the laid out examples… how dangerous are these. I am not on individual but such news can damage the reputation of the institution as well. Clear demarcated guidelines are needed but without putting any onus on those who spread it all needs to be seen. Not an issue with print media much. Look at the army, policies, etc.”
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing the original petitioners, stated,
“The rule is effectively struck down now.”
CJI Kant responded,
“If the HC would have said rule shall remain inoperational then it was okay, it was different. But when you strike it down, you say the rule is not there.”
ALSO READ: Bombay HC Order Today On Centre’s Move To Form ‘Fact Check Unit’ Under ‘IT Laws’
The Bench proceeded to issue a notice regarding the government’s appeal and instructed the respondents (Kunal Kamra and others) to file their responses within four weeks.
The Bench directed,
“Issue notice. Let reply be filed within 4 weeks and rejoinder thereafter. Post the matter before a three-judge bench,”
The government sought a stay on the High Court’s verdict, but the Court did not grant the request, instead prioritizing a timely hearing and resolution.
CJI Kant remarked,
“Let us hear and decide the matter first and at the earliest,”
The IT Amendment Rules, 2023 revised the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021) and were subsequently challenged in the Bombay High Court.
Petitions, including one from stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, specifically opposed Rule 3, arguing that it conferred undue authority to the Centre for identifying false online news. The petitioners contended that the amendments were ultra vires Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(a)(g) (freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution.
On January 31, Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale of the High Court delivered a split verdict on the matter. Justice Patel ruled in favor of the petitioners, striking down Rule 3 due to concerns about possible censorship of user content and shifting the responsibility for content accuracy from creators to intermediaries.
He stressed the need for clear guidelines and criticized the imbalance in addressing grievances related to government information versus other sensitive issues, asserting there was no justification for granting “high value” speech recognition to information about the central government over others.
Conversely, Justice Gokhale upheld the amended rules’ validity, arguing they targeted misinformation with malicious intent while safeguarding freedom of speech. She noted that a rule could not be invalidated solely on concerns of potential abuse, affirming that petitioners and users could approach the court if any actions by intermediaries infringed on their fundamental rights.
Afterward, then High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay appointed Justice Atul Chandurkar to provide a tie-breaking opinion on the case, leading to Justice Chandurkar striking down the Rules in September 2024. “I am of the opinion that it violates Articles 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution,” the single-judge stated.
Subsequently, the Central government filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Union of India vs. Kunal Kamra
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE