Mumbai: In a significant ruling, Bombay High Court on Friday struck down changes to IT Rules introduced by the Central government allowing it to set up Fact Check Units.
The amendments, made last year, gave the government the authority to identify and debunk ‘fake and misleading’ information related to its functioning on social media platforms.
A tie-breaker bench of Justice Atul Chandrukar ruled that the amendments violated Indian Constitution’s guarantee of equality before law (Article 14) and freedom of speech and expression (Article 19 (1)(a)) and practice of any occupation (Article 19(1)(g)).
Following a split verdict delivered earlier by a two-judge bench, Justice Chandrukar said, “I am of the opinion that the amendments are violative of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India.”
The expression ‘fake, false and misleading’ in the Rules was “vague and hence wrong” in the absence of any definition, the judge said.
The Union government, which amended the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in 2023, faced criticism and legal challenges for Rule 3(1)(b)(v), which granted it the authority to form Fact Check Units for identifying false online news.
The high court was hearing a batch of petitions filed in April 2023 by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, Editors Guild of India, Association of Indian Magazines and News Broadcast and Digital Association.
The petitions argued that the IT Rules amendments were beyond the powers of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and violated the right to equality (Article 14) and freedom to practise any profession of the Constitution.
The split verdict delivered by Bombay HC in January 2024 saw Justice Patel saying that proposed Fact Check Units directly infringed on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g), also citing concerns about the potential for censorship and differential treatment between online and print content.
Justice Gokhale, on the other hand, opined that amendment to the IT Rules was not unconstitutional, noting that the allegations of possible bias raised by the petitioners were ‘unfounded’.
Following the tie-breaker judge’s opinion siding with Justice Patel’s judgment, the petitions will formally be placed before a division bench for a final verdict.
