The Supreme Court, for a time, has ordered the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Checking Unit (PIB FCU) notification be set aside. This was about to combat fake news and mischief. It was meant to protect the right to freely and truthfully inform the public. EGI and standup comedian Kunal Kamra were the ones who filed a petition, and the bench responded by referencing the
“spate of legal debates held in public that have blinded many individuals to our laws.”
According to the Supreme Court three-judge Bench, headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, it declined to comment about whether or not S.O. 279(E) was legal since it has become the same as Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, that are being used to In other words, they delayed for the final decision that will be given by Bombay High Court awaiting of the Judge number three adjudging the Rule and its validity.
The decision landed on the judge’s desk and consequently upon a review bench, which delivered a two-judge ruling. After the Centre issued the original three days’ notice on March 12, 2024, on March 20, the third judge declined to rule on the case of suspension of Rule 3.
At the hearing, Darius Khambata, a senior advocate, defended Kunal Kamra’s case that establishing the fact check unit would create an uncanny fear among social media intermediaries to avoid the risk of removing their content. Among other things, he also voiced apprehension about the green lights he supposed the new law would have on the right to speech and expression.
Addressing the same matter, Shadan Farasat, a lawyer for the Editors Guild of India, expressed concern that a government-owned fact-checking unit would be a monopoly on truth for the end of accommodating diverse points of view.
In his capacity as the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Mehta pointed out something related to fake news being spread on social media that has caused harm and violence to people in the past. In his speech, Defar responded to the topic by claiming that the previously established legal mechanisms were not effective enough to curb the ratio of false information.
Few petitioners brought forward protests, but as many social media intermediaries did not dare to challenge the Rule, the ones who did have the field to themselves.
Kunal Kamra’s petition claimed that the Act removed the speech opposing the Central Government and, hence, used the intermediaries to pursue censorship.
The Supreme Court’s stay on the government’s Fact Checking Unit notification will remain in effect until the High Court assesses the provisions of the rule and its implications on fundamental rights, especially the right to free speech and expression.
