Why This?
The Bombay High Court recently struck down a provision related to the Fact Check Unit in the 2021 IT Rules. While it’s tempting to jump straight into learning about IT Rules alone, it’s vital to see the bigger picture where governance, digital freedom, and judiciary intersect, especially in balancing individual rights vs. state interests. This article gives special focus to the evolving idea of regulated digital freedom, key rulings, and the role of institutions in shaping this critical issue.
GS Paper 1: Indian Society: Role of Media and Social Media
Note4Students: Examine case studies on social media’s impact on public opinion, focusing on its role in recent social movements and electoral processes.
Microtheme: Social empowerment
GS Paper 2: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations: Governance and Accountability, Regulation of Social Media, Judicial Review and Role of the Judiciary
Note4Students: Analyze recent legislative changes regarding social media regulation and their implications for citizen rights and government accountability.
Microtheme: Fundamental Rights
GS Paper 3: Technology, Economic Development, Bio-diversity, Environment, Security, and Disaster Management: Cybersecurity, Digital Economy
Note4Students: Discuss the dual aspects of cybersecurity measures—ensuring national security while maintaining individual freedoms and the implications for the digital economy.
Microtheme: Cyber security
GS Paper 4: Ethics, Integrity, and Aptitude: Ethics in Governance, Regulation vs. Free Speech, Transparency and Accountability
Note4Students: Reflect on ethical dilemmas in digital governance, considering the balance between regulating harmful content and upholding free speech rights.
Microtheme: Public/Civil Service Values
Establishment of the Fact Check Unit
Earlier this year, the Government of India notified the Press Information Bureau’s Fact-Check Unit (PIB-FCU) under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) as the Central Government’s official fact-check unit. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2023 designated the PIB’s FCU as the fact-check unit. It amended the 2021 IT Rules. The amendment broadened the definition of ‘fake news’ to cover matters related to ‘government business’.
Aim of the Fact Check Unit (FCU)
- The FCU was tasked with flagging any social media posts that it deemed ‘fake,’ ‘false,’ or ‘misleading’ regarding government affairs.
- It could compel social media platforms to remove such flagged content to maintain their “safe harbour” status and legal immunity.
| PIB’s Fact-Check Unit (PIB-FCU)Establishment: The PIB-FCU was launched in November 2019 with the aim of acting as a deterrent against the creation and spread of fake news and misinformation related to the Government of India. It provides an avenue for the public to report questionable information about government policies.Functions and Mandate:Counter Misinformation: The PIB-FCU counters misinformation about government policies, initiatives, and schemes, either proactively (suo motu) or based on complaints.Monitor and Detect: The unit actively monitors and detects disinformation campaigns and promptly exposes false information regarding the government.Content Removal: When the unit identifies a piece of content as fake, social media platforms must remove it as part of their due diligence under IT Rules. Additionally, internet and telecom service providers are required to block web links to such fake news. |
Judgement of the Bombay High Court
| Observation | Details |
| Violation of Fundamental Rights | The amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by allowing the state to determine what is “fake, false, or misleading.” |
| Right to Equality and Free Speech | The Rule violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g), and was declared ultra vires to the IT Act. There is no “right to the truth” under Article 19(1)(a). |
| Discrimination Against Digital Platforms | The Rule unfairly targeted digital platforms while excluding print media, with no valid reason for this difference in treatment. |
| Government Cannot Be Judge in Its Own Cause | The FCU allowed the government to act as the final arbiter of “fake news,” creating a conflict of interest by allowing the government to judge itself. |
| Vagueness and Overbreadth | Terms like “fake, false, or misleading” were vague, making the rule excessively broad and prone to misuse, leading to potential censorship. |
| Chilling Effect on Digital Intermediaries | The rule had a chilling effect on digital platforms, causing self-censorship to avoid hosting undefined “fake or misleading” content. |
| Vagueness Leads to Censorship | The lack of clear definitions for “misleading” could lead to lawful content being censored, failing the proportionality test for restricting rights. |
How is it related to the concept of regulated digital freedom ?
The issue of notifying the PIB’s Fact-Check Unit (PIB-FCU) as the Central Government’s official fact-checking body is directly related to the concept of regulated digital freedom in several ways:
1. Balance Between Freedom of Expression and Accountability
- Digital Freedom: Online platforms provide individuals the freedom to express their views freely, which is a core aspect of democratic societies.
- Regulation: The establishment of the PIB-FCU aims to regulate this freedom by ensuring that false and misleading content, especially related to government policies, is monitored and removed. While it seeks to prevent the spread of disinformation, it raises questions about whether this regulation could inadvertently suppress legitimate speech.
2. Accountability of Social Media Intermediaries
- Digital Freedom: Social media platforms are key enablers of free expression, providing a space for people to share opinions and information.
- Regulation: By making social media intermediaries accountable for the removal of flagged content, the PIB-FCU adds a layer of oversight. However, this accountability may force platforms to err on the side of caution, potentially leading to over-censorship or the removal of lawful content to avoid penalties, affecting digital freedom.
3. Preventing Misinformation and Ensuring National Security
- Digital Freedom: The unregulated sharing of content, including misinformation, can lead to public harm, such as inciting violence or hate speech, which undermines national security.
- Regulation: The role of the PIB-FCU in flagging fake news aims to prevent the misuse of digital platforms for illegal activities, thus supporting a safe digital environment. However, the line between misinformation and critical discourse can sometimes blur, potentially leading to overregulation.
4. Cybersecurity and Control over Digital Platforms
- Digital Freedom: Users enjoy open access to share and interact with content freely on digital platforms.
- Regulation: By regulating content and enforcing the removal of harmful content (e.g., deepfakes, fake news), the PIB-FCU indirectly controls what can be shared, which can enhance cybersecurity. However, this regulation must be carefully managed to ensure it does not infringe on free speech unnecessarily.
Way Forward
- Final Verdict of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court must provide a final ruling on broader concerns in the IT Rules, such as mandates for social media platforms regarding grievance redressal and compliance mechanisms, following the Bombay HC’s ruling in the Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2023) case, which declared fact-check units unconstitutional.
- Develop a Transparent and Participatory Process: The government should collaborate with civil society, media organizations, and stakeholders to create a more transparent and participatory process for identifying fake or misleading content.
- Establish an Independent Fact-Checking Body: An independent, non-partisan fact-checking body should be created with clear guidelines for making decisions to avoid bias or influence.
- Adhere to Judicial Guidelines: Any government takedown requests should follow judicial procedures, as outlined in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India or Section 69A of the IT Act, ensuring that takedowns are legal and necessary under specific conditions.
The introduction of the PIB-FCU reflects a broader global trend toward regulated digital freedom, where governments seek to balance the benefits of digital openness with the need for accountability, cybersecurity, and the prevention of harm. However, it also raises critical concerns about the potential for overregulation, censorship, and infringement on individual freedoms, making the need for transparency and clear boundaries essential in maintaining the right balance between freedom and regulation.
Hello,
We have a confession: we’re here to compete with your notes! Burning Issues magazine is your go-to resource as your exam approaches, designed to help you through the anxiety and overwhelm of preparing for the Civil Services Examination.
Many aspirants struggle despite reading current affairs for a year. This often happens because they interpret current affairs as merely news. As a UPSC aspirant, it’s essential to analyze these topics from the perspectives of General Studies 1, 2, 3, and 4, and that’s exactly what Elevate does.
This magazine features two sections: Burning Issues and Prelims Tidbits. Burning Issues covers current affairs that may appear in your Mains papers and teaches you how to think about these topics from different GS perspectives in just two pages.
Prelims Tidbits simplifies your Prelims preparation by distilling key facts, data, and concepts into easy-to-recall points framed around basic questions: What? Who? How? When?
So, dive in! Every page is crafted to enhance your UPSC prep. With consistency and this magazine, you’re not just preparing; you’re mastering the exam. The journey is about understanding and applying your knowledge effectively.
