The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the Union government’s challenge to the Bombay High Court decision that struck down amendments to the Information Technology Rules allowing the Centre to set up a Fact Check Unit (FCU). However, the court declined to stay the High Court’s ruling for now and issued notices to all respondents, asking them to file replies within four weeks.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. Notices were issued to comedian Kunal Kamra and organisations including the Editors Guild of India and the Association of Indian Magazines.
The dispute concerns the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023. The amendment empowered the government to establish a Fact Check Unit to identify online content it considers “fake, false or misleading” in relation to official government business. Content flagged by the unit could compel social media intermediaries to remove it in order to retain “safe harbour” protection from liability for user-generated posts.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice said the court must strike a balance between curbing misinformation and safeguarding freedom of expression. He noted that false digital content can cause serious harm but stressed that any regulatory mechanism must have clearly defined limits. The bench also questioned whether the proposed framework placed disproportionate responsibility on the government while leaving social media platforms with limited accountability.
Defending the amendment, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the rules were aimed at countering fake and fraudulent information, not suppressing satire, criticism or comedy. He maintained that the government sought a mechanism to identify misinformation rather than impose blanket censorship.
Opposing the appeal, senior advocate Arvind Datar highlighted that the Centre had approached the Supreme Court after a delay of more than 400 days. He argued that the High Court had already indicated that any fact-checking framework should be introduced through comprehensive legislation rather than a narrow rule amendment. He also submitted that intermediaries already operate under strict compliance norms and can remove unlawful content within existing timelines.
In September 2024, the Bombay High Court struck down the rule, calling it vague and overly broad. The court observed that allowing the government to label content as fake could create a chilling effect on free speech and influence platform moderation decisions. Petitions challenging the rule were filed by Kamra and multiple media bodies, including the News Broadcasters and Digital Association.
While refusing to suspend the High Court verdict, the Supreme Court indicated it would aim to decide the case on merits and listed it for further hearing after four weeks.
