Centre’s fact-checking unit on hold: The case of editors’ association Kunal Kamra

Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra is one of the petitioners challenging the new IT rules

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court stayed the Center’s move to notify the fact-checking team of the Press Information Bureau after arguments from stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra’s lawyers and the Editors Guild of India, expressing concerns over freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court today overturned the decision of the single judge of the Bombay High Court which said there would be no significant loss if the Center sets up a fact-checking team.

The petitioners expressed concerns over censorship and said the new IT rules (notified to the fact-checking department) will restrict users from freely expressing their opinions on social media.

What the petitioner said

Senior advocate Darius Khambata, appearing for Kamra, challenged the ruling, saying the new IT rules would have a “chilling effect on freedom of expression”.

Under rules introduced last year, the fact-checking team will report any post to social media intermediaries if it finds it is false, untrue or contains misleading facts about government business. 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.

Mr Kambata said today that social media intermediaries may remove content flagged by fact-checking units rather than take any risks.

“Of course they would, why would they take the risk. It has a chilling effect on free speech. There are no intermediaries to challenge the rules. Why? Because they will protect their interests. They will be happy to have a chilling effect,” according to one person Scale, he said. Bar and bench reports.

Mr Kambata said the new rules were focused on protecting the centre. “It’s a matter of Caesar judging Caesar. The center is not a separate class. If the purpose is to prevent fake news, then everyone is affected. More so individuals,” he said.

“Elections are coming and the public must know all the information about the government. Instead of information being filtered as false by the centre,” he added.

The senior lawyer also said the government’s fact-checking unit was the biggest travesty as government departments are supposed to publish correct information about the government.

Appearing before the Editors’ Association, Law Society lawyer Shadan Farasat said the government’s decision to decide whether something was true or not violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – the right to freedom of speech and expression – Core.

“The (High Court) judge’s assumption is that the government is a good boy. The government’s critical work is why section 19(1)(a) exists,” he said.

Mr Farasat said the model code of conduct had come into effect as the Election Commission announced the dates for the Lok Sabha elections, stressing that now was the worst time to inform the fact-checking team.

“How exactly will investigative journalists work? This is done through multiple sources in the government. Now the central authorities will silence all other voices. This will even affect contentious issues between the center and the state,” he said.

Earlier, in a split verdict, a division bench of the Bombay High Court moved the case to a single judge who refused to grant relief to the petitioners.

what the center said

The government insists the rules were issued in the public interest and aimed at combating fake news. The Center argued that political views, satire and comedy had nothing to do with government matters, but the petitioners said the “matters of the central government” were a “murky” area.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today said online media was uncontrolled and crossed national borders. “What bothers the government is the disinformation it spreads through intermediaries. It’s like there’s going to be a huge influx of coronavirus and then people start lining up to buy cereals and so on,” he explained.

Mr. Mehta clarified that this would be limited to government business only. “If anyone criticizes the prime minister, that doesn’t fall within that,” he said.

What does the Supreme Court say?

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted that the final hearing of the challenge to the new IT rules will begin on April 15 in the Bombay High Court. The order came without suspending the fact-checking team because it had not yet been notified.

The Supreme Court noted that the challenge to the validity of the IT rules raises serious constitutional issues and its impact on freedom of speech and expression requires analysis by the High Court. As a result, it suspended the notice but noted that it would not comment on the merits of the case.