A day after the Center informed the News Information Bureau’s fact-checking unit to “tackle the challenge of fake news”, the Supreme Court today stayed the notification and stayed the Bombay High Court’s approval of the government’s move.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said the matter involves freedom of expression. However, the court did not comment on the merits of the case.

Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and the Editors Guild of India have approached the Bombay High Court seeking directions to stop the Center from notifying the fact-checking team.

The fact-checking panel provisions are part of the amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, proposed by the Center last year.

According to the regulations, if the department discovers or learns of any post that is false, false or contains misleading facts about government business, it will report it to social media intermediaries. Once such a post is flagged, the intermediary may choose to remove it or issue a disclaimer. If the second option is adopted, the intermediary may face the risk of legal action.

The petitioners expressed concerns about censorship and said the new rules would restrict users from freely expressing their opinions on social media. They have said it is easy for social media intermediaries to remove posts flagged by government fact-checking units to avoid legal trouble.

Kamra also questioned that the new IT rules infringed on his rights to work as a political satirist and expressed concern that he would lose social media access if his content was flagged by fact-checking authorities. He said the rules would allow the government to flag any content critical of its policies.

The center responded that the rules were in the public interest and aimed at combating fake news. It also said fact-checking would be based on evidence and such decisions could be challenged in court.

The Center also said that political views, satire and comedy have no relevance to government affairs; the petitioners believed that “the affairs of the central government” were a “vague” area.

On March 11, the Bombay High Court refused to grant a temporary stay on the establishment of the fact-checking team, stating that no serious and irreparable damage would be caused.

The single judge noted that the petitioners were apprehensive that exchange of information in the form of political speeches or comments, political satire, etc., could be targeted if the fact-checking team was notified. However, the Solicitor General said the department was only intended to handle strictly government matters and was not intended to suppress political views, satire or satire.

The petition against the new IT rules was filed before a single bench in January after a division bench delivered a split verdict. While one of the division bench struck down the rules, calling them unconstitutional, another judge upheld them.

Last year, the Center assured the court that the fact-checking team would not be informed before the final verdict on the IT rules. But after the split verdict, the Center said the oral assurance could only be extended until a third judge takes up the matter. The petitioner subsequently filed an interim application seeking a stay of notification to the fact-checking team. After not getting relief from the Bombay High Court, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.