Dikhyaa Mohanty 
The Bombay High Court struck down the Central government’s revised IT Rules, which had permitted the creation of Fact Check Units, on Friday in a significant ruling. The government now has the power to recognize and refute “fake and misleading” information on how social media sites operate thanks to changes adopted last year. The Indian Constitution’s guarantees of equality before the law (Article 14), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19 (1)(a)), and the ability to pursue any occupation (Article 19(1)(g)) were all infringed, according to a tie-breaker bench led by Justice Atul Chandrukar.
Following a split verdict delivered earlier by a two-judge bench, Justice Chandrukar said, “I am of the opinion that the amendments are violative of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India.” The expression ‘fake, false and misleading’ in the Rules was “vague and hence wrong” in the absence of any definition, the judge said.
Following legal challenges and criticism, the Union government updated the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in 2023. This amendment addressed Rule 3(1)(b)(v), which gave the government the ability to establish Fact Check Units to uncover misleading online content. The high court was considering a number of petitions that the Association of Indian Magazines, Editors Guild of India, News Broadcast and Digital Association, and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra had submitted in April 2023. The petitions contended that the revisions to the IT Rules went beyond the authority granted by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and infringed upon the Constitution’s guarantees of equality (Article 14) and the freedom to practice any profession.
Justice Patel stated in the divided ruling rendered by the Bombay High Court in January 2024 that the proposed Fact Check Units clearly violated Article 19(1)(g) of the basic rights charter. He also raised concerns about the possibility of censorship and unequal treatment of online and print information. However, Justice Gokhale stated that the petitioners’ “unfounded” accusations of potential bias supported his opinion that the IT Rules’ revision was valid. Once the tie-breaker judge rules in favor of Justice Patel’s decision, the petitions will go before a division bench for a final decision.
