MC EXPLAINER Do Karnataka’s new bills on misinformation, hate crime raise free speech, platform liability concerns?

What does the misinformation bill say?

The Misinformation and Fake News Prohibition Bill seeks to criminalise the creation and sharing of fake news online. The bill defines fake news as content that is fabricated, distorted, or presented out of context—including edited videos, misquotations, or making false statements deliberately.

Penalties may include up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh, or both.

The bill proposes a Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority, chaired by the Minister for Kannada and Culture, to monitor implementation. The authority will also be empowered to prohibit content that is considered “anti-feminist,” “obscene,” or disrespectful to “Sanatan symbols.”

Platforms and their officers may be held liable for user-generated content, unless they can prove they acted to prevent violations.

What does the hate speech prevention bill say?

The Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill defines hate speech as any communication (online or offline) that incites harm or promotes hatred based on religion, caste, gender, or language.

It proposes up to three years of imprisonment, and holds both individuals and intermediaries, like social media platforms, liable for such content. It also includes provisions for victim impact statements and pre-emptive measures to prevent escalation.

Why is the Karnataka government introducing these bills?

Karnataka has decided to bring in an anti-hate speech law amid growing communal tensions in the coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi. On May 31, Dakshina Kannada district in-charge minister Dinesh Gundu Rao said he would discuss the proposal with Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who confirmed the government is "seriously considering" it. Rao pointed out that those accused of hate speech easily secure bail under current laws. Karnataka’s fact-checking unit to combat fake news on social media has been operational since March 2024.

What’s next?

Karnataka government is likely to hold wider consultations on misinformation bill. State IT-BT Minister Priyank Kharge told Moneycontrol that the proposed misinformation bill will be reviewed by the IT-BT and home departments before finalisation. The draft bill seeks to ban content deemed anti-feminist, obscene, or disrespectful to Sanatan symbols on social media and proposes a regulatory authority chaired by the Kannada and Culture Minister. However, sources said there is no consensus on placing it under the Kannada and Culture department.

What can be the potential impact of the bills on citizens?

Experts say that some provisions in the bills may infringe on constitutionally protected free speech. For instance, terms like “anti-feminist” or “disrespect to Sanatan symbols” are not clearly defined, and could be interpreted broadly, they say. This could create a "chilling effect" on legitimate criticism, satire, or artistic and academic expression.

Moreover, both bills classify offences as non-bailable, and allow courts to issue “disabling directions” to restrict or remove content. Experts also argue that this move could raise the risk of pre-emptive censorship

What can be the potential impact of the bills on social media companies?

The draft laws place a significant burden on intermediaries such as social media platforms, web hosting providers, and messaging apps. Companies may face criminal prosecution or daily fines of Rs 25,000 (up to a maximum of Rs 25 lakh), if they fail to comply with takedown orders or allow prohibited content to remain accessible.

In addition, the Hate Speech Bill holds intermediaries liable even if they "unknowingly" enable the commission of an offence. This may push platforms to over-censor content to avoid legal risk, or invest heavily in legal and moderation teams to stay compliant—something smaller platforms may struggle to do.

Will these bills stand the test of law?

Several provisions in the draft bills may face constitutional challenges, if enacted. The Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment had struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and overly broad in criminalising online speech. Legal scholars point out that the Karnataka bills may face a similar scrutiny, especially over vague terms and potential violations of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

"Restrictions on free speech must be reasonable and couched in the narrowest possible terms. In the Shreya Singhal case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for being vague, arbitrary and overbroad, consequently having a chilling effect on free speech. The Court said that a law that arbitrarily or excessively invades free speech, upsets the balance Article 19(1) and Article 19(2) and must be struck down," Pallavi Sondhi, senior associate at Ikigai Law said.

Can legal challenges arise from the creation of a government-led Fake News Regulatory Authority?

"Last year, the Bombay High Court had struck down a provision of the IT Rules that gave the central government the power to flag content about itself as fake or misleading, on the grounds that the power to define what is fake/misinformation cannot lie with the executive, and the state cannot be the arbiter of truth. The bill can face a challenge on similar grounds," Sondhi added.

Also, read: New Karnataka bill to curb fake news, ban online content against feminism, Sanatan symbols