Bombay HC Strikes Down Centre’s Fact Check Unit

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• What is World Food India (WFI)?
• Food Processing Sector in India
• Steps Taken by the Government to Boost Food Processing Sector in India
• Challenges and Road Ahead for Food Processing Sector in India

Why in News?

• The Bombay High Court (HC) struck down a key provision of the amended Information Technology (IT) Rules 2021 (under IT Act of 2000), as unconstitutional.
• This provision empowered the government to identify “fake news” on social media platforms through a “Fact Check Unit” (FCU).

Amendment of the IT Rules:

• The law in question: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEiTY) promulgated the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 (2023 Rules), which amended the IT Rules 2021.
• The amendment –
  • Expanded the general term “fake news”: To include “government business”.
  • Defines the power of FCU: If the FCU comes across or is informed about any posts that are fake, false, or contain misleading facts pertaining to the business of the government, it would flag it to the social media intermediaries concerned.
  • Fix the accountability of the online intermediaries: The online intermediaries would then have to take down such content if they wanted to retain their “safe harbour”/ legal immunity with regard to third-party content published by them.
• Concerns regarding these amendments:
  • When it came to matters pertaining to itself, the FCUs permitted the government to be the “only arbiter” of truth.
  • The Rules raised concerns over free speech and the extent to which the government can regulate it.

Timeline of Events which Led to the Striking Down of the FCU:

• The constitutional validity of the Rules was challenged (in the Bombay HC) on the basis of them being arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of fundamental rights.
• The Centre said –
  • The Rules were not against any opinion, criticism, satire, or humour targeting the government.
  • They were meant to only prohibit fake, false, and misleading facts on social media related to “government business”.
• Given the split verdict of January, as per rules of the Bombay HC, the case was referred to a third judge (Justice Chandurkar) who would hear the matter afresh.
• Meanwhile, the Centre notified the FCU under the Press Information Bureau (PIB).
  • However, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the notification until the Bombay HC took a final decision on the petitions challenging the amended Rules.

What was the Split Decision of the Bombay HC?

• Striking down the rule: The State’s decision to classify speech as true or false and compel the non-publication of the latter is nothing but censorship.
• Upholding the rule: Right of citizens to participate in the representative and participative democracy of the county is meaningless unless they have access to authentic information and are not misled by misinformation.

The Verdict Given by Justice Chandurkar:

• Violates fundamental rights: The amended Rule [3(1)(b)(v)] was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (right to practice a profession or trade) of the Constitution.
• Imposes non-reasonable restrictions: The impugned Rule curtailed the fundamental rights of citizens beyond the reasonable restrictions prescribed under Article 19(2), which was impermissible through the mode of delegated legislation.
• Using vague expressions: The expressions “fake, false or misleading” in the Rule are vague, and under the right to freedom of speech and expression there is no further “right to the truth”.
• Inadequate safeguards: The Centre’s claim that decisions given by the FCU can be challenged before a constitutional court cannot be treated as adequate safeguard.
• Chilling effect on the online intermediary: The impugned Rule resulted in a chilling effect on the intermediary due to the threat of losing safe harbour, and was therefore liable to be struck down.

What is the Road Ahead in this Matter Now?

• Procedural part:
  • Justice Chandurkar’s opinion has settled the matter in favour of the petitioners by a 2-1 majority.
  • His opinion will be placed before a division Bench of two judges, which will formally announce the 2-1 majority against the impugned Rule.
• An appeal before the SC:
  • This is given that similar issues are pending before the Delhi and Madras HCs too.
  • Also, other aspects of the 2021 guidelines, such as the mandates for social media platforms to set up a grievance redressal and compliance mechanism, are also pending before various HCs.

Q.1. What are the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023?

The IT Amendment Rules 2023 are a set of rules (under the IT Act 2000) that regulate online gaming and fact checking of information about the Union Government.

Q.2. What are reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights in India?

Reasonable restrictions are limitations that can be placed on the fundamental rights of Indian citizens as outlined in Article 19 of the Constitution. These restrictions are based on logic and are in the interest of the public or the country’s sovereignty and integrity.

Source:  Bombay HC strikes down Centre’s fact check unit| IE | TH