<p>The Supreme Court did well to stay last week’s notification of the Central government constituting a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau (PIB). The setting up of the FCU had led to widespread concerns over its likely impact on freedom of speech. The stay will be valid till the Bombay High Court takes a decision on a petition challenging the constitution of the unit under the amended Information Technology Rules of 2023. The High Court, which had first given a split verdict, had later given the go-ahead for the government to notify the rules. The government did so post haste but the top court stayed it within a day, citing ‘’serious constitutional questions’’ involved in the matter. The fact-checking unit was set up as a statutory body with powers to flag what it considered false information related to the Central government and its agencies on social media sites.</p>.<p>In its order, the court has mentioned that the impact of the rule, under which the FCU was set up, would call for analysis by the High Court. The petitioners, including the Editors Guild of India, had pointed this out in the court. The rule stipulates that intermediaries such as social media platforms should put in ‘reasonable efforts’ to prevent users from uploading information about the government that is ‘identified as fake, false, or misleading’. Failure to comply with the FCU’s decision on such news could result in the loss of their safe harbour status. The threat would make the social media platforms extra careful and pressure them to act against even truthful but critical information about the government. The impact of this on freedom of expression and free flow of information in society can well be imagined.</p>.<p>Other issues also need careful scrutiny. The FCU may consider as disinformation information published in the print media and shared on social media. The need for the FCU is contested when there are laws under which fake news and disinformation can be tackled. There is no clear legal definition of disinformation and so there is ample scope for FCU decisions and actions to be arbitrary. There is also a clear conflict of interest in the government making a judgment on news about it. There are practical issues as well. It has been pointed out that the PIB has taken decisions on only 1,223 of the over 1.2 lakh requests for fact-checking it received in the last three years. Elections are only weeks away. A fact-checking system run by the government would certainly affect free and fair campaigns by political parties and candidates.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court did well to stay last week’s notification of the Central government constituting a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau (PIB). The setting up of the FCU had led to widespread concerns over its likely impact on freedom of speech. The stay will be valid till the Bombay High Court takes a decision on a petition challenging the constitution of the unit under the amended Information Technology Rules of 2023. The High Court, which had first given a split verdict, had later given the go-ahead for the government to notify the rules. The government did so post haste but the top court stayed it within a day, citing ‘’serious constitutional questions’’ involved in the matter. The fact-checking unit was set up as a statutory body with powers to flag what it considered false information related to the Central government and its agencies on social media sites.</p>.<p>In its order, the court has mentioned that the impact of the rule, under which the FCU was set up, would call for analysis by the High Court. The petitioners, including the Editors Guild of India, had pointed this out in the court. The rule stipulates that intermediaries such as social media platforms should put in ‘reasonable efforts’ to prevent users from uploading information about the government that is ‘identified as fake, false, or misleading’. Failure to comply with the FCU’s decision on such news could result in the loss of their safe harbour status. The threat would make the social media platforms extra careful and pressure them to act against even truthful but critical information about the government. The impact of this on freedom of expression and free flow of information in society can well be imagined.</p>.<p>Other issues also need careful scrutiny. The FCU may consider as disinformation information published in the print media and shared on social media. The need for the FCU is contested when there are laws under which fake news and disinformation can be tackled. There is no clear legal definition of disinformation and so there is ample scope for FCU decisions and actions to be arbitrary. There is also a clear conflict of interest in the government making a judgment on news about it. There are practical issues as well. It has been pointed out that the PIB has taken decisions on only 1,223 of the over 1.2 lakh requests for fact-checking it received in the last three years. Elections are only weeks away. A fact-checking system run by the government would certainly affect free and fair campaigns by political parties and candidates.</p>
