Fact vs fake

THE Bombay High Court’s observation on Thursday that since the April amendment to IT Rules, 2021, though well intended, led to the violation of the Constitution and so it must go is commendable as it holds out hope for the right to dissent. The HC Bench was hearing petitions by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the amendment that gives power to the government-appointed Fact Check Units (FCUs) to decide whether information about the Central government put online was fake or factual. If the FCU declares content as ‘fake’ or ‘misleading’, it would be incumbent upon the media site to remove it and the Internet service providers would have to block its URL if they wish to retain their ‘safe harbour’ (legal immunity against third-party content). The HC also put a question mark over the need for having FCUs, wondering if the Press Information Bureau was not adequate for this purpose.

The print, broadcast and online media and the votaries of freedom of speech have predominantly been targeted over this rule. Various media representatives have moved court against it as this amounts to censorship by the government through its FCUs. Kamra’s counsel Navroz Seervai pertinently describes this high-handedness as the government declaring ‘it is my way or the highway’ and underestimating the people’s intellect by acting like a ‘nanny’, deciding what was good for the public.

The government’s contention that the affected parties could move court does not hold water as the regularity with which state governments have been clamping down on those seen as criticising them is worrisome. The latest instance is of the Kerala government filing a criminal case against Shajan Skariah, editor of a popular news portal, for making ‘false’ allegations against an MLA, and the police confiscating computers and barring employees from running the portal’s YouTube channel.