The Bombay High Court struck down the Union’s move to establish a fact-checking unit (FCU), citing violations of constitutional rights, specifically under Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. This judgment has raised serious questions about the validity of other government-run fact-checking mechanisms, particularly the Information Disorder Tackling Unit (IDTU) in Karnataka, spearheaded by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
While the Union’s bid to monitor “fake, false, and misleading” information about its business was deemed unconstitutional, the Karnataka Government is moving forward with its own initiative aimed at combating misinformation and fake news online. This raises a critical question: On what legal and constitutional grounds is the Karnataka Government’s fact-checking unit being run, especially when the Union’s similar initiative has been nullified?
Union Government’s Fact- Checking unit struck down
The Union’s fact-checking unit, introduced through the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023, was intended to regulate online content deemed “fake, false, or misleading” concerning the business of the Union government. However, this attempt was challenged by multiple petitioners, including prominent comedian and activist Kunal Kamra. The crux of the petitioners’ argument was that the amendments granted excessive power to the Union government, making it the ultimate arbiter of truth online. This, they argued, violated citizens’ fundamental rights to free speech and expression, as protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
If a Central Government fact checking unit is struck down by the Bombay High Court, on what basis is the Karnataka Government fact checking unit being run @siddaramaiah ji ? pic.twitter.com/7E10tAYtns
— Abhijit Iyer-Mitra (@Iyervval) September 20, 2024
In its landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court found that the Union’s proposed fact-checking mechanism violated key constitutional principles. Justice A.S. Chandurkar, in his referral order, stated that the amendments infringed on Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression), and further noted that the rules lacked specificity. The expression “fake, false, and misleading” was criticised for being vague and undefined, creating a risk of arbitrary enforcement. In addition, Justice Chandurkar pointed out that the government could not assume the role of an absolute gatekeeper of online information, as this would severely curtail freedom of expression in the country.
The absence of guiding principles for identifying what constitutes “fake news” about the government’s business was particularly troubling to the court. This lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making processes was seen as a violation of the principles of natural justice, which require that laws must be clear, precise, and equitable.
Karnataka’s IDTU
While the Union’s FCU has been halted, the Karnataka government under CM Siddaramaiah has been forging ahead with its own fact-checking unit—the Information Disorder Tackling Unit (IDTU). The unit was launched in March 2024 on a trial basis, and since then, it has conducted over 500 fact-checks, targeting online misinformation related to politics, elections, general events, and communal issues.
Unlike the Union’s initiative, which focused solely on regulating misinformation about the government’s business, Karnataka’s IDTU takes a broader approach, addressing fake news that could impact public order, communal harmony, and electoral processes. According to official data, more than a third (34 per cent) of the fact-checks conducted during the trial period were related to political developments, while 20 per cent focused on misinformation about elections and voting. Other categories included general events that were misconstrued, communal events, digitally altered media, and crime-related misinformation.
The state’s IT/BT Minister Priyank Kharge recently announced that the government is in the process of formalising the IDTU. The unit is expected to be integrated with the Home Department, along with a legal cell and enforcement agencies, ensuring a coordinated approach to tackling online misinformation. However, this expansion comes at a time when the legal foundation of such units is under intense scrutiny following the Bombay High Court’s ruling against the Union’s FCU.
Legal and Constitutional issues facing Karnataka’s IDTU
The Bombay High Court’s judgment raises a serious question for Karnataka’s fact-checking unit: Can a state government operate such a unit without infringing on the same constitutional rights that led to the Central FCU’s invalidation?
The most critical legal challenge the Karnataka government may face is the vagueness of definitions related to what constitutes “fake news.” Much like the Union’s fact-checking unit, the IDTU focuses on identifying and curbing misinformation, but without a precise legal definition of terms like “fake,” “false,” or “misleading,” it could be accused of operating under similarly vague and broad criteria. As the High Court made clear in its ruling on the Union’s FCU, such vagueness opens the door to subjective interpretation and arbitrary enforcement, which could result in censorship.
The constitutional issues related to the IDTU’s operation revolve around Articles 14 and 19:
- Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. If the IDTU disproportionately targets political content or uses its powers to influence election-related narratives, it could be accused of infringing this principle.
- Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, a cornerstone of Indian democracy. Any government-led fact-checking unit must tread carefully to avoid curbing this fundamental right. The High Court’s ruling made it clear that no government can unilaterally decide what is “true” or “false” without violating citizens’ rights to free speech.
Further complicating the issue is the lack of independent oversight for the IDTU. The High Court’s ruling emphasised that the absence of checks and balances in the Union’s fact-checking unit was a major factor in its unconstitutionality. Similarly, Karnataka’s IDTU, if not operated with full transparency and procedural safeguards, could face legal challenges for violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Balancing act between free speech and Misinformation Control
Karnataka’s IDTU has shown early signs of being an ambitious initiative aimed at countering online misinformation. However, as the High Court’s ruling against the Union has shown, even well-intentioned efforts to combat fake news can face significant constitutional challenges if they are perceived as overstepping legal boundaries. The freedom of speech, as enshrined in Article 19, cannot be curbed without satisfying the reasonable restrictions set out in Article 19(2). Any attempt to classify speech as “true” or “false” by a government body risks breaching these constitutional safeguards.
Moving forward, Karnataka’s IDTU must ensure that it operates within a clearly defined legal framework with robust safeguards against arbitrary action. The absence of clear legal definitions, transparent procedures, and independent oversight could expose the unit to legal challenges, much like the Union’s fact-checking unit.
Comments