May 15, 2025 05:58 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Are nukes safe with irresponsible and rogue nation like Pakistan?': Rajnath Singh questions world | 'Go and apologise': Supreme Court slams Madhya Pradesh minister over remark against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi | 'Can timelines be imposed?': President Murmu's question to Supreme Court on Tamil Nadu verdict | 'Had Indira Gandhi been alive, I would've asked her why PoK was not taken back in Simla Agreement': Himanta Biswa Sarma | India's stand demanding vacation of Pak-occupied Kashmir unchanged: MEA | PM Modi visits Adampur Air Base days after Operation Sindoor | Jammu and Kashmir: Three Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists killed in encounter with security forces in Shopian | US: Two Indian students die in road mishap in Pennsylvania | Air India, IndiGo cancel flights to 7 airports located in several border cities as safety measure | US, China agree to pause tariff war for 90 days, will slash reciprocal duties by 115 percent
In image Bombay High Court/ courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

Bombay HC strikes down Centre's bid to establish fact-checking unit

| @indiablooms | Sep 21, 2024, at 04:34 am

Mumbai/IBNS: The Bombay High Court Friday struck down the Centre's attempt to set up a fact-checking unit after standup comic Kunal Kamra filed a petition against the government's move.

Justice AS Chandurkar said the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023, which empowers the Centre to set up fact-check units (FCUs) for a crackdown on fake news online, is against Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

"I have considered the matter extensively. The impugned rules are violative of Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (freedom and right to profession) of the Constitution of India," Justice Chandurkar said and struck down the proposed IT amendments.

The expression "fake, false and misleading" in the IT Rules was "vague and hence wrong" in the absence of any definition, the judge observed.

The case was heard by a third judge after a division bench of the Bombay High Court delivered a split verdict in this matter in January.

January's split verdict was delivered by a division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale. While Justice Patel struck down the Rules, Justice Gokhale upheld them.

Justice Patel had said the Rules amounted to censorship, but Justice Gokhale had said they did not have any "chilling effect" on free speech as argued.

In March, the Supreme Court put a stay on the Centre's notification announcing the operational status of its official fact-check unit (FCU).

The Supreme Court had said the Centre can't go ahead with its plan until the Bombay High Court decides on the constitutionality of the matter.

In his petition, Kunal Kamra had said the amendments would put unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

The petitioners said the provision would lead to government-led censorship online and empower it to be the "prosecutor, the judge, and in that loose sense, the executioner" of what constitutes the 'truth' online.
 

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.