Supreme Court Agrees to Review Bombay High Court's Verdict on IT Rules Amendments
The Supreme Court of India, on Tuesday, consented to examine the correctness of a Bombay High Court judgment that invalidated amendments to the Information and Technology Rules. These amendments had empowered the central government to establish fact-check units (FCUs) to identify fake content on social media platforms. The rules would have mandated intermediaries to remove such content or risk losing their 'safe harbour' legal protections.
Government's Stance on Fake News and National Reputation
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, informed the Supreme Court that the government's intention is not to block social media platforms but to mitigate the harm caused by fake posts. He argued that such misinformation can severely damage individual, institutional, and national reputations, and FCUs are a necessary tool to curb this spread.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant echoed these concerns, stating that fake news poses a significant threat. He highlighted that allowing a fake post to remain active for even 48 hours could irreparably tarnish a person's dignity and reputation. The CJI-led bench, which includes Justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, emphasized the dangerous nature of some platforms and the potential for fake news to harm the nation's standing.
Opposition from Petitioners and Legal Arguments
Opposing the Centre's position, senior advocate Arvind Datar argued that the government already possesses the authority to issue takedown orders under existing laws. He pointed out that social media platforms are required to remove such content within 48 hours of receiving a notice, making the FCU amendments redundant and potentially overreaching.
The bench has directed the petitioners before the High Court—including comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, the News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and the Association of Indian Magazines—to respond to the Centre's appeal within four weeks. However, the court declined the Solicitor General's request for a stay on the Bombay High Court judgment, which would have temporarily reinstated the FCUs.
Background of the Bombay High Court Split Verdict
The Bombay High Court's division bench, comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, delivered a split verdict on the matter. Justice Patel struck down the FCU provisions, while Justice Gokhale upheld the validity of the Rules. The case was then referred to an umpire judge, Justice A S Chandurkar—now a Supreme Court judge—who sided with Justice Patel, leading to the overall invalidation of the amendments.
Centre's Appeal and Constitutional Considerations
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Centre contended that the rule aligns with Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. The government argued that the rule actually reinforces the public's right to access accurate information about government functioning. It asserted that Article 19 does not protect the deliberate spread of misinformation, and therefore, regulating such content through FCUs does not create a chilling effect on free speech.
The Centre has urged the Supreme Court to examine the rule from this constitutional angle, emphasizing the need to balance free expression with the prevention of harm from fake news. The bench has agreed to hear the petition comprehensively to resolve the issue definitively, without granting any interim stay on the High Court's decision.
