Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment on Fact-Checking Units

1. In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court struck down the 2023 amendment to Rule 3 of the IT Rules, which mandated the establishment of Fact-Checking Units (FCUs).
2. This verdict was delivered in the Kunal Kamra vs Union of India case (2024) and has important implications for online freedom of speech and expression in India.

Background

1. The 2023 amendment to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, empowered the government to identify and flag "fake news" related to its activities on social media platforms.
2. This identification was to be carried out by FCUs, and social media intermediaries were obligated to take down flagged content.
3. Non-compliance could lead to legal action against intermediaries and the loss of their safe harbor protection.
4. Earlier, in 2023, the Supreme Court had stayed the Centre's notification establishing an FCU within the Press Information Bureau (PIB).

Key Observations of the Bombay High Court

The High Court's decision to strike down the amendment was based on several key observations:

1. Ultra Vires: The amendment was deemed to be ultra vires (beyond the legal power or authority) of the IT Act, 2000, exceeding the scope of the original legislation.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court held that the amendment violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Equality before Law), 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression), 19(1)(g) (Freedom to practice any profession), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
3. Vagueness: The amendment lacked clarity in defining "fake" or "misleading" news, creating ambiguity and potential for misuse.
4. Absence of "Right to Truth": The court emphasized that the State does not have a responsibility to ensure only government-approved information is circulated, especially in the absence of a legally recognized "right to truth."
5. Disproportionate: The amendment failed the "test of proportionality," meaning the restrictions imposed on online speech were excessive in relation to the stated objective of combating fake news.

Implications

This ruling is a significant victory for proponents of free speech online. It underscores the importance of upholding fundamental rights in the digital age and highlights the judiciary's role in checking potential overreach by the government in regulating online content. The decision also raises important questions about the definition of "fake news" and the role of the state in combating misinformation.

Test of Proportionality Measures to restrict Fundamental Rights must satisfy the following: Legitimacy: Evaluates if the law serves a valid government objective. Suitability: Checks if the law effectively addresses that objective. Necessity: Considers whether the law is essential, or if less restrictive alternatives are available. Balancing: Weighs the benefits of the law against the rights it may infringe upon.

Must Check: Best IAS Coaching In Delhi

UPSC Prelims Result 2024 Out: Expected Cut Off & Other Details, UPSC Prelims 2024 Answer with Explanation, Daily Prelims Quiz, Daily Current Affairs, MONTHLY CURRENT AFFAIRS TOTAL (CAT) MAGAZINE, Best IAS Coaching Institute in Karol Bagh, Best IAS Coaching Institute in Delhi, Daily Mains Question Answer Practice, ENSURE IAS UPSC Toppers, UPSC Toppers Marksheet, Previous Year Interview Questions, UPSC Syllabus