April 18, 2026 07:24 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
‘Panic reaction’: Rahul Gandhi on women’s bill, says PM Modi ‘wants to send a message’ | Adani Group shares rise as Gautam Adani becomes Asia’s richest, overtakes Mukesh Ambani | TCS Nashik ‘conversion’ case accused seeks anticipatory bail citing pregnancy | IT raids TMC candidate Debasish Kumar’s premises ahead of Bengal polls | Bengal SIR: Supreme Court allows voters restored by tribunal till April 21 and 27 to vote | 'Women won't spare you': PM Modi warns Opposition over resistance to quota bill | Vijay booked in 3 cases over poll code violation ahead of Tamil Nadu polls | 'Black law': Stalin burns copy of 'delimitation' bill, slams Modi govt | TCS halts Nashik BPO operations amid sexual abuse, conversion allegations | ‘We are surprised’: SC stays Pawan Khera’s bail over remarks on Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife
In image Bombay High Court/ courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

Bombay HC strikes down Centre's bid to establish fact-checking unit

| @indiablooms | Sep 21, 2024, at 04:34 am

Mumbai/IBNS: The Bombay High Court Friday struck down the Centre's attempt to set up a fact-checking unit after standup comic Kunal Kamra filed a petition against the government's move.

Justice AS Chandurkar said the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023, which empowers the Centre to set up fact-check units (FCUs) for a crackdown on fake news online, is against Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

"I have considered the matter extensively. The impugned rules are violative of Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (freedom and right to profession) of the Constitution of India," Justice Chandurkar said and struck down the proposed IT amendments.

The expression "fake, false and misleading" in the IT Rules was "vague and hence wrong" in the absence of any definition, the judge observed.

The case was heard by a third judge after a division bench of the Bombay High Court delivered a split verdict in this matter in January.

January's split verdict was delivered by a division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale. While Justice Patel struck down the Rules, Justice Gokhale upheld them.

Justice Patel had said the Rules amounted to censorship, but Justice Gokhale had said they did not have any "chilling effect" on free speech as argued.

In March, the Supreme Court put a stay on the Centre's notification announcing the operational status of its official fact-check unit (FCU).

The Supreme Court had said the Centre can't go ahead with its plan until the Bombay High Court decides on the constitutionality of the matter.

In his petition, Kunal Kamra had said the amendments would put unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

The petitioners said the provision would lead to government-led censorship online and empower it to be the "prosecutor, the judge, and in that loose sense, the executioner" of what constitutes the 'truth' online.
 

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.