Unwarranted curbs: On the Centre’s move on a ‘fact-checking unit’

The Bombay High Court struck down the Centre’s 2023 amendment that empowered a ‘fact-checking unit’ to remove alleged fake or misleading content about the government from digital platforms. The court ruled that such measures violated the right to free speech, as they were vaguely defined and lacked clear legal safeguards.

Background: In 2023, the government amended the IT rules to establish a fact-checking unit under the Press Information Bureau. Its role was to flag any information related to the central government and order the removal of content deemed ‘fake’, ‘false’, or ‘misleading’ from social media and digital platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc. These platforms would be required to remove the flagged content, and failure to comply could result in them losing their “safe harbour” protection from liability for user-generated content, potentially leading to legal action against the platforms.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Reasons Cited for Striking Down the Unit

• Violation of Article 19 – Freedom of Speech and Expression: While the central government contended that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and does not permit the dissemination of false information, the court emphasised that any restrictions on this right must be based on the specific grounds outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This article provides clear parameters for limiting free speech, ensuring that such limitations are justified and not arbitrary.
  • Article 19(2) states that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, security, public order, decency, morality, and other specified grounds. However, the terms “fake” and “false news” are not included in this list, making it difficult to justify restrictions based solely on such classifications.
• Focus on Information Against the Government: The rules applied specifically to information about the central government, raising concerns about potential bias and selective enforcement. This approach could be seen as an attempt to suppress dissent and critical voices. The vague nature of the rules could lead to self-censorship among comedians and political satirists, who may fear repercussions for their work. This chilling effect on free expression undermines the fundamental principles of democracy.
• Lack of Clear Definitions: The absence of clear definitions for terms like “fake” and “misleading” creates ambiguity, allowing the government to potentially misuse the authority to remove content. This poses a threat to democratic discourse.

Check Out UPSC Modules From PW Store

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision to strike down the Centre’s fact-checking unit highlights the crucial balance between regulating misinformation and protecting free speech in a democracy. This ruling reaffirms the necessity for clear legal standards that uphold individual rights while ensuring accountability in the digital age.

DOWNLOAD PDF