 "fake news")
The Bombay High Court (HC), on Thursday, questioned the need for an amendment to IT rules when the government-run Press Information Bureau (PIB) already exists. The two-judge bench sought an explanation as to why the existing PIB structure was considered inadequate and why the amendment was necessary.
The bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale made this remark while addressing the challenges against the revised Rule 3(1)(b)(v) and Rule 3(i)(II)(A), (C) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023.
Government of India has planned to constitute a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to verify any published information regarding the government on social media.
Earlier, they had considered PIB to act as the agency responsible for fact-checking. The decision drew harsh criticism from the supporters of free speech in the country. The Editors Guild of India had said that this could lead to "censorship of free speech in the country."
Kunal Kamra, a comedian, had filed a plea in the Bombay High Court to challenge the proposed changes in the Information Technology Rules of 2022, which include the establishment of FCU that will identify and label online news deemed false or "fake news" regarding government activities.
Also Read
Editors Guild of India and the Association of Indian Magazines also filed separate petitions challenging the amendments proposed by the Centre, claiming that they are unconstitutional and arbitrary.
During the hearing of pleas filed by the Editors Guild of India, the Association of Indian Magazines, and the New Broadcast and Digital Association, the Bombay High Court recognised the extensive reach and influence of the internet. According to a report by Bar and Bench, the Court also observed that the government may have introduced FCUs due to the unique capabilities of technology. However, the judges expressed the need to determine whether the establishment of FCUs is legitimate, considering the limitations and concerns associated with the internet.
Senior advocate Navroz Seervai, representing stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, questioned the government's lack of faith in citizens, wondering if it was necessary for the government to act as their guardian or "nanny".
Seervai argued that the amendment was the government's way of controlling social media to cover only what aligns with its interests. He also highlighted that intermediaries, concerned about their own vulnerability, comply with directions and do not challenge the rules.
The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) justified the amendment in an affidavit, stating that false and misleading information could impact electoral democracy and erode public trust in democratic institutions. It clarified that the FCU's identification of false content would not automatically result in its removal.
Responding to the arguments, the bench emphasised that even if the motives behind a rule are commendable, it must be discarded if its impact is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the Court raised concerns about the implications for online platforms hosting critical comments on election campaign statements leading up to the 2024 elections. They questioned whether such platforms would lose their safe harbour protection if the government's fact-checking unit flags the content as false and the platform refuses to remove it.
The hearing of the case will continue on July 7.
