Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules: A Victory for Free Speech in the Digital Age
You must have heard about the Bombay High Court’s decision to strike down key Information Technology (IT) Act provisions.
Let’s break down what this decision is all about.
In 2023, the government introduced changes to the IT Rules. These changes allowed the government to create Fact-Check Units (FCUs) to identify and flag “false” or “misleading” news about the government on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and Facebook. These platforms would then have been forced to take down the content or add warnings when the FCUs flagged something.
Many people, including journalists and social media users like political satirist Kunal Kamra, opposed these rules. They argued that the government would have too much power over what information stays online, leading to censorship. The fear was that people would not be able to freely criticize the government without the risk of their content being taken down, making it unfair and harmful to free speech.
On the other hand, the government defended the changes. It said that FCUs are important to ensure the public gets correct information about government matters and to stop the spread of harmful false news. According to the government, these fact-checking units are necessary in today’s digital world, where misinformation can spread quickly and cause real damage.
The case went to the Bombay High Court, where two judges disagreed. One judge said the rules were unconstitutional because they gave the government too much power, while the other supported the changes, saying they were necessary to fight misinformation. Finally, Justice Atul Chandurkar stepped in to break the tie.
Justice Chandurkar ruled that these changes went against the Indian Constitution, specifically Articles 14, 19, and 21, which protect the right to equality, freedom of speech, and personal liberty. He said that the government’s plan lacked clear guidelines and would lead to censorship. Giving the government unchecked power to decide what is "false" or "fake" without any objective criteria would have a “chilling effect” on free speech. This means people would feel scared to express their opinions freely, fearing government action.
In the end, the court ruled against the amendments, meaning the government could not set up these Fact-Check Units as planned. This decision is seen as a victory for free speech and digital freedoms. However, the government might still appeal the ruling in the Supreme Court, so the final outcome is not yet settled.