'Unfounded': Bombay High Court strikes down IT Rules amendments, cites free speech and equality as reasons

On Friday, the Bombay High Court annulled amendments to the IT Rules enacted by the Central government, which had established the authority to set up Fact Check Units. These amendments, introduced in 2023, empowered the government to identify and counteract what it deemed 'fake and misleading' information concerning its operations on social media.

A tie-breaker bench led by Justice Atul Chandurkar ruled that the amendments violated the Constitution's guarantees of equality before the law (Article 14) and freedom of speech and expression (Article 19). In his opinion, necessitated by a split verdict from a previous two-judge bench, Justice Chandurkar stated, "I believe these amendments infringe upon Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India."

The terms "fake, false, and misleading" used in the Rules were described as "vague and therefore problematic" due to the lack of clear definitions, the judge added.

In 2023, the Central government modified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Rule 3, which allowed the establishment of Fact Check Units to identify false online news, faced substantial criticism and legal challenges.

The court was reviewing four petitions filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, the Association of Indian Magazines, and the News Broadcast and Digital Association.

These petitions, lodged in April of the previous year, contended that the amendments overstepped the authority granted under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and violated the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to practice any profession.

In a January 2024 ruling, Justice Patel emphasized that the proposed Fact Check Units directly infringed upon fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g), raising concerns about potential censorship and unequal treatment between online and print media.

Conversely, Justice Gokhale argued that the amendments to the IT Rules were not unconstitutional, asserting that the petitioners' claims of bias were "unfounded." She maintained that the amendments did not impose restrictions on free speech and did not suggest any penal consequences for users.

With the tie-breaker judge's opinion aligning with Justice Patel's ruling, the petitions will now be forwarded to a division bench for a final decision.