Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment 2023 on Fact-Check Units
Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment 2023 on Fact-Check Units, in a crucial ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday declared the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, unconstitutional, specifically focusing on Rule 3. This rule allowed the Central government to form Fact-Check Units (FCUs) to identify and flag false or misleading information about the government on social media and other online platforms.
Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment 2023 on Fact-Check Units (PhotoCredit-BarandBench)
The case, which involved several petitions including one by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, challenged the constitutionality of Rule 3. The amendment was seen by many as a violation of fundamental rights, especially concerning freedom of speech and equality before the law, guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment 2023 on Fact-Check Units
Background of the Case
The matter first came to the Bombay High Court earlier this year, resulting in a split verdict by a Division Bench in January 2023. Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale disagreed on whether Rule 3 should stand. While Justice Patel ruled in favor of the petitioners and called for striking down the rule, Justice Gokhale upheld it, leading to the case being referred to Justice AS Chandurkar for a tie-breaking decision.
Today, Justice Chandurkar delivered his verdict, agreeing with Justice Patel and ruling that Rule 3 violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Freedom of Speech). He stated that giving the government the power to label information as false or fake could have a chilling effect on free speech. 'Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment 2023 on Fact-Check Units',
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Patel, in his earlier decision, had raised concerns about how the amended rules might lead to censorship. He argued that the responsibility for content accuracy would shift from content creators to intermediaries like social media platforms. He also pointed out the imbalance in giving special protection to government-related information while not addressing other equally sensitive issues.
In contrast, Justice Gokhale had defended the amendments, saying that they were intended to target malicious misinformation, not genuine criticism or satire. She argued that potential misuse of the rule shouldn’t be a reason to invalidate it, as affected users could always approach the courts if their rights were violated. Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment 2023 on Fact-Check Units
The Petitioners' Concerns
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocates Navroz Seervai and Arvind Datar, had strongly opposed Rule 3. They claimed that the creation of FCUs could lead to state censorship of any discussion the government disapproved of. They also argued that the rule was vague and did not provide a clear process for how the fact-check units would operate.
Government’s Defense
The Central government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the FCUs were not meant to suppress criticism but were only concerned with misinformation about official government content. Mehta also stated that intermediaries, not the government, would make the initial decision on whether content was false, with courts as the ultimate decision-makers if needed.
He added that citizens have a right to accurate information and that the rules only aimed to curb the spread of false news. "Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment 2023 on Fact-Check Units."
Final Ruling
In his final ruling, Justice Chandurkar sided with the petitioners, stating that Rule 3 was unconstitutional. He emphasized the importance of protecting free speech and preventing the misuse of government power in labeling content as false or fake.
With this decision, the Bombay High Court has once again underscored the significance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, while balancing the need to combat misinformation.