New Delhi: In a landmark decision, the Bombay high court on Friday (September 20) has struck down the 2023 amendments to the IT Rules, citing violations of the Indian constitution.
The amendments, which empowered the Central government to establish a Fact Check Unit (FCU) to identify “fake and misleading” information on social media platforms, were challenged by petitioners, including political satirist Kunal Kamra.
Justice Atul Chandurkar’s ruling declared the amendments unconstitutional, specifically highlighting infringements on Articles 14, 19, and 21, Live Law reported.
According to Justice Chandurkar, the amendments fail the “test of proportionality” and unfairly differentiate between online and print content, violating Article 19(1)(g).
“I am of the opinion that the amendments are violative of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Chandurkar was quoted as saying by Live Law. He added that they also violate Article 21.
Further, the judge noted that the expressions ‘fake, false or misleading’ are “vague,” The Indian Express reported.
“Impugned rule as amended be struck down. All the petitions will be placed before the division bench to be decided,”Justice Chandurkar was quoted as saying by IE.
The court’s decision comes after a split verdict in January 2024, where Justice Gautam Patel struck down the rules entirely, while Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale upheld their validity. In February, the chief justice of the Bombay high court had appointed Justice Chandurkar to serve as the deciding judge.
Under the amended rules, social media platforms like X, Instagram, and Facebook were required to remove or label content flagged as fake by the government’s FCU.
Defending the move, the Ministry of Information and Technology had underlined that fact-checking by government agencies would contain potential harm to the public as “authentic information” related to the government’s business will be ascertained and disseminated.
The petitioners, however, argued that these rules unfairly exposed intermediaries to liability, violating their protections under the IT Act. Additionally, they claimed that the rules infringed upon citizens’ right to equal protection and free speech, as guaranteed by the Indian constitution.
In his plea, Kamra had expressed concerns that these rules could be used to arbitrarily censor his content, leading to blocked or removed posts, or even suspended or deactivated social media accounts.
