Supreme Court stays government's fact-check unit notification

SC stays implementation of government's fact checking unit

The Supreme Court on March 21 stayed the implementation of amendments to the information technology rules that allowed a fact-check unit to be set up to verify news items appearing in media about the government, saying it involved serious constitutional questions.

The order comes a day after the ministry of electronics and information technology notified the fact-checking unit after the Bombay High Court refused a stay on it.

"We are clearly of the view that the notification of the Union government dated March 20, 2024, would need to be stayed," a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said. The case involves serious constitutional questions. The issues related to fundamental rights would call for analysis by the high court.

The rules will be on hold till the Bombay High Court disposes pleas that challenge the formation of the fact-checking unit, it said.

The matter reached the top court after a third judge of the Bombay High Court, too, refused to stay the setting up of the unit. The third judge’s order came after a two-judge bench delivered a split verdict.

The IT Rules (amendment), 2023 says that intermediaries like social media platforms will have to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure that users do not upload information about Central government “identified as fake or false or misleading”.

An organisation appointed by the government will be the arbiter of such content, and if intermediaries do not comply with the organisation's decision, they may lose their safe harbour status, it said.

Kunal Kamra's plea

Internet Freedom Foundation, which assisted stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra in filing the petition, the amendments were ultra vires of Sec 79 of the IT Act, 2000.

"In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that revocation of safe harbour for intermediaries must conform to subject matters laid down in Article 19(2). “Fake or false or misleading ” content is not a ground enumerated in Art. 19(2) or Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000," it said.

The petition also argued that the amendments violate the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 and also didn’t pass the reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression test. It also violated right to practice, trade or profession.