The Bombay High Court (HC) expressed its dissatisfaction with the Indian government on Thursday regarding its silence on the necessity of new IT amendments aimed at identifying and curbing fake news. During the hearing of several petitions challenging the recently amended rules, which grant the government the authority to combat fake news on social media platforms, a division bench consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale emphasized that a law must be struck down if it has an unconstitutional effect, regardless of the motives behind its formulation.

Among the petitioners are stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, and the Association of Indian Magazines, who argue that the amended rules are arbitrary, unconstitutional, and will infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights. The HC adjourned the hearing and will resume the case on Friday, July 7.

Representing Kamra, senior counsel Navroz Seervai criticized the government’s intention to become a “parent or nanny” for the public by deciding what information is acceptable and censoring everything else. He argued that the rules encroach upon citizens’ fundamental rights and called for a constitutional examination of their validity. Seervai emphasized the significance of social media as a platform for expression and information dissemination, asserting that the government cannot be the sole arbiter of truth in that space.

Justice Patel echoed this sentiment, stating that even if the motives are commendable, any unconstitutional effect must be discarded. The court also questioned the need for new legislation, highlighting that the Press Information Bureau (PIB) has been effectively combating fake news. Seervai further argued that social media intermediaries are primarily concerned with their own interests and have little regard for the content they host.

While the central government maintained its stance, stating that the fact-checking unit was necessary due to false information circulating on social media platforms, the court highlighted that no intermediary company had filed a petition against the rules, suggesting compliance with government directives.

At the center of the issue are the recently amended regulations covering the Indian digital space. These rules, notified on April 6, propose a fact-checking unit to identify and flag false online content related to the government. The move has faced criticism and led to petitions seeking the quashing of the new rules. The government assured the court that the fact-checking unit would not be activated until July 10. The court’s decision on the matter remains pending, leaving the implementation of the rules uncertain.

The Bombay High Court (HC) expressed its dissatisfaction with the Indian government on Thursday regarding its silence on the necessity of new IT amendments aimed at identifying and curbing fake news. During the hearing of several petitions challenging the recently amended rules, which grant the government the authority to combat fake news on social media platforms, a division bench consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale emphasized that a law must be struck down if it has an unconstitutional effect, regardless of the motives behind its formulation.

Among the petitioners are stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, and the Association of Indian Magazines, who argue that the amended rules are arbitrary, unconstitutional, and will infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights. The HC adjourned the hearing and will resume the case on Friday, July 7.

Representing Kamra, senior counsel Navroz Seervai criticized the government’s intention to become a “parent or nanny” for the public by deciding what information is acceptable and censoring everything else. He argued that the rules encroach upon citizens’ fundamental rights and called for a constitutional examination of their validity. Seervai emphasized the significance of social media as a platform for expression and information dissemination, asserting that the government cannot be the sole arbiter of truth in that space.

Justice Patel echoed this sentiment, stating that even if the motives are commendable, any unconstitutional effect must be discarded. The court also questioned the need for new legislation, highlighting that the Press Information Bureau (PIB) has been effectively combating fake news. Seervai further argued that social media intermediaries are primarily concerned with their own interests and have little regard for the content they host.

While the central government maintained its stance, stating that the fact-checking unit was necessary due to false information circulating on social media platforms, the court highlighted that no intermediary company had filed a petition against the rules, suggesting compliance with government directives.

At the center of the issue are the recently amended regulations covering the Indian digital space. These rules, notified on April 6, propose a fact-checking unit to identify and flag false online content related to the government. The move has faced criticism and led to petitions seeking the quashing of the new rules. The government assured the court that the fact-checking unit would not be activated until July 10. The court’s decision on the matter remains pending, leaving the implementation of the rules uncertain.