The Bombay High Court in “Kunal Kamra vs Union of India case” struck down the Centre’s “fake news” Fact Check Rule, a provision in the amended Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, which allowed the government to identify and manage “fake news” on social media through a Fact Check Unit (FCU).
Background of the Case:
- Amendment Overview: In 2022, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued amendments to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, expanding the definition of “fake news” to include content related to government operations on social media through a Fact Check Unit (FCU).
- FCU’s Role: The FCU was empowered to flag posts deemed “fake,” compelling social media intermediaries to remove such content to maintain their legal immunity.
- Supreme Court Intervention: In 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the notification that established the FCU under the Press Information Bureau (PIB).
Key Observations by the High Court:
- Unconstitutionality: The High Court ruled that the amended rules are ultra vires, meaning they exceed the powers granted under the IT Act, 2000.
- Articles Violated: The court identified violations of-
- Article 14: Equality before the law
- Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression
- Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice a profession
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
- Vagueness of Terms: Terms like “fake, false, or misleading” were deemed vague and overly broad, leading to potential censorship.
- Absence of a Right to Truth: The court ruled that the state is not obliged to provide citizens with only accurate information as determined by the FCU, highlighting that such responsibility does not exist.
Test of Proportionality:
- The court assessed the amendment against the test of proportionality, which examines whether restrictions on fundamental rights are justified:
- Legitimacy: The law must serve a valid government objective.
- Suitability: The law should effectively address that objective.
- Necessity: The law must be essential, with no less restrictive alternatives available.
- Balancing: The benefits of the law should be weighed against the rights it may infringe upon.
Implications of the Ruling
- Impact on Existing FCUs: The decision affects state-level FCUs established in states like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
Ref: Source
| UPSC IAS Preparation Resources | |
| Current Affairs Analysis | Topperspedia |
| GS Shots | Simply Explained |
| Daily Flash Cards | Daily Quiz |
Frequently Asked Question:
What did the Bombay High Court rule regarding the “Fake News” Fact Check Rule?
The Bombay High Court ruled the rule unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and equality before the law.
What role did the Fact Check Unit (FCU) play under the amended IT Rules 2021?
The FCU was empowered to identify “fake news” and compel social media intermediaries to remove flagged content.
Which constitutional articles were violated according to the court?
The court identified violations of Article 14 (equality before law), Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech), Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice profession), and Article 21 (right to life and liberty).
What was the issue with terms like “fake, false, or misleading” in the amendment?
The court found these terms vague and broad, potentially leading to arbitrary censorship.
What is the test of proportionality, and how did it apply in this case?
The test of proportionality assesses if a law is justified in restricting fundamental rights. The court ruled that the amendment failed this test as it was not necessary or balanced.