X: @the_news_21
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has temporarily halted the Centre’s notification regarding the establishment of the Fact Check Unit under the Press Information Bureau, overturning the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision to allow the government’s move.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, emphasized the fundamental importance of freedom of expression in the matter. While the court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, it underscored the criticality of upholding constitutional rights.
The petition challenging the notification was initially filed by stand-up comic Kunal Kamra and the Editors Guild of India in the Bombay High Court. They sought to restrain the Centre from implementing the Fact Check Unit, expressing concerns over potential censorship and limitations on social media expression.
The provision for the Fact Check Unit was introduced as part of the amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, enacted by the Centre last year. Under these rules, the unit is tasked with identifying and flagging fake, false, or misleading content related to government affairs on social media platforms.
Critics, including Mr. Kamra, raised fears of stifling political satire and expression, citing the risk of content being flagged and removed by social media intermediaries to avoid legal repercussions. They argued that the rules could infringe upon the right to free speech and political commentary.
In response, the Centre defended the rules as a measure to combat fake news and ensure public interest. It assured that fact-checking would be evidence-based and subject to judicial review.
The Bombay High Court, in its earlier ruling, declined to impose an interim stay on the implementation of the Fact Check Unit, citing the absence of imminent harm. The court acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns regarding potential targeting of political discourse but noted the government’s assurance that the unit would focus solely on matters pertaining to government affairs.
The petitions against the new IT Rules were initially referred to a single-judge bench following a split verdict by a division bench in January. While one judge deemed the rules unconstitutional, another upheld them.
The Supreme Court’s decision to pause the notification underscores the ongoing debate surrounding freedom of expression and the regulation of digital content. As the legal proceedings continue, the case holds implications for the balance between governmental oversight and individual liberties in the digital age.
