DeadAnt

Supreme Court Stays Notification of Fact Check Unit After Pleas Filed By Kunal Kamra, Others

By DA Staff 22 March 2024 2 mins read

The Supreme Court has stayed the Centreโ€™s move to notify the Fact Check Unit [FCU], following arguments by the counsel for Kunal Kamra that flagged concerns over the freedom of expression.

Spread the love

On Thursday, the Supreme Court stayed the Centreโ€™s move to notify the Fact Check Unit [FCU] under the Press Information Bureau, following arguments by the counsel for Kunal Kamra and the Editors Guild of India that flagged concerns over the freedom of expression. The top court set aside a ruling by a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court that had refused to grant an interim stay, which noted that there would be โ€œno irreparable lossโ€ if the FCU was allowed to be established.

Under the Information Technology Rules (2021), introduced last year by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Centre had proposed the setting up of a Fact Check Unit that would identify โ€œfake newsโ€ about the Union government on social media and flag it to social media intermediaries. Those companies would then have to take such content down if they wanted to retain โ€˜safe harbourโ€™ legal immunity.

Critics have pointed out that the new rulesโ€”and the FCU in particularโ€”will have a โ€œchilling effectโ€ on free speech. Last April, Kamra had filed a petition in the Bombay High Court stating that the new IT Rules were unconstitutional and โ€œa direct assault by the respondent authorities on freedom of thought, speech and expression, referred to by the Supreme Court as one of the three pillars of our Constitution.โ€

That petition led to a split verdict, and last week, a third Bombay High Court judge refused to grant an interim stay on the amendment, allowing the Centre to proceed with the notification of the FCU. In the Supreme Court, Kamraโ€™s advocate Darius Khambata argued that the FCU let the Centre control the information to be consumed by the public. โ€œThe rules make Central Govt the arbiter of truth regarding facts relating to itself,” he said, as reported by LiveLaw.

The Supreme Court refrained from discussing the merits of the challenge pending in the Bombay High Court, but said that there exist prima facie grounds for staying the 20 March notification. The three-Judge bench also observed that the challenge raised serious constitutional questions. โ€œThe impact of Rule 3(1)(b)(v), as amended in 2023, on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression would fall for analysis by the High Court,” the Court observed.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


DA Staff

Damn straight. Dead Ant has staff. You’d better believe it.

comments

comments for this post are closed