Centre defends IT Rules in Supreme Court, says 'not meant to curb satire, humour or criticism'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasised the need to maintain a careful balance between protecting the country from the spread of fake online content and preserving citizens’ right to freedom of expression. The observation came as the Centre argued that the Information Technology Rules were never intended to suppress humour, satire or criticism directed at the government. Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that neither the Information Technology Act nor the associated Rules were designed to restrict legitimate expression. “There is absolutely no intention under the statute or the Rules to curb humour, satire, personal opinions, criticism or critical views,” Mehta submitted before the court. The government had earlier announced the establishment of a Fact Checking Unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau through a notification issued in March 2024 under the amended Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The amendments were notified in April 2023. The FCU was envisaged as a mechanism to act as a deterrent against the creation and circulation of misinformation or fake news related to the “business” of the Union government.

However, the amended Rules and the notification creating the FCU were challenged before the Bombay High Court through petitions filed by the Editors Guild of India and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, among others.

In September 2024, the High Court struck down the FCU notification and held that the 2023 amendments to the IT Rules were unconstitutional. The court ruled that the provisions violated Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession) of the Constitution. It also noted that the terms “fake”, “false” and “misleading” used in the Rules were vague as they lacked precise definitions. The High Court further observed that the government could not position itself as the sole authority determining what constitutes the truth. Challenging this decision, the Centre moved the Supreme Court, asserting that the Rules were never meant to undermine freedom of expression. Senior advocates Arvind Datar and N.H. Seervai, representing parties including the Editors Guild of India, the Association of Indian Magazines, the News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and Kunal Kamra, questioned the functioning of the proposed FCU. They asked who within the unit would determine whether a particular piece of content should be classified as fake. “Who will staff the FCU? Can such a body be created merely through a notification?” Datar asked, adding that the High Court had simply asked the government to frame clearer rules instead of creating such a unit through executive notification.

Chief Justice Kant observed that the issues raised in the case were of considerable constitutional importance. According to him, it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to lay down guiding principles on the matter. “The concerns highlighted by the High Court bring us to the fundamental question of how to balance competing rights without undermining individual constitutional freedoms,” he said.

At the same time, the Chief Justice noted that some online platforms often operated irresponsibly. “You can destroy someone’s personal life… you can damage the nation as well. I am concerned about the impact such content can have on the country,” he remarked. Datar agreed that content that is demonstrably fake or misleading should indeed be removed. However, he questioned who would decide what qualifies as misleading. “There must be clear guidelines,” the Chief Justice responded, adding that placing the entire responsibility on the state machinery without imposing obligations on those who deliberately spread misinformation also required careful consideration.

Interjecting during the exchange, Mehta said that in many instances, misinformation was obvious. “When we see it, we know it is fake,” he remarked. Datar, however, pointed out that social media intermediaries already operate under significant regulatory obligations. After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice on the special leave petition filed by the Union government. The Bench declined the Solicitor General’s request to stay the Bombay High Court’s ruling. Instead, the court indicated that it would directly hear the matter on merits rather than focus on interim relief at this stage.