Bombay HC Reinforces Judicial Review Over Government on Fake News

Sep 21, 2024

Follow us on


Bombay HC rules independent judicial review crucial in differentiating free speech from fake news, challenging the Centre's Fact Check Unit.

Bombay HC Reinforces Judicial Review Over Government on Fake News

The Bombay High Court has set a precedent by reinforcing that independent judicial review, rather than the Government’s disapproval, is essential in distinguishing free speech from fake news. This ruling emphasizes that if left solely to the Government, it could blur the lines between propaganda and legitimate criticism.

Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules Amendment 2023 on Fact Check Units

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court struck down the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023. Specifically, Rule 3, which empowers the Central government to form Fact-Check Units (FCUs) for identifying false or fake news against the government on social media and online platforms, was deemed "vague" and a "disproportionate" incursion on free speech.

Justice AS Chandurkar, delivering the tie-breaking opinion after a split verdict by a Division Bench in January this year, stated, "The amended Rule seeks to impose restrictions beyond those permissible under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It also suffers from manifest arbitrariness…"

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitions, including one filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, challenged Rule 3, arguing it was ultra vires Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and violated Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19(1)(a)(g) (freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution.

Justice GS Patel, in his earlier ruling, highlighted concerns about potential censorship and the shifting of responsibility for content accuracy from creators to intermediaries. He emphasized the need for clear guidelines and criticized the imbalance in addressing grievances related to government information versus other sensitive issues.

In contrast, Justice Neela Gokhale upheld the validity of the amended rules, stating they targeted misinformation with malicious intent while protecting freedom of speech. She argued that a rule cannot be invalidated solely based on potential abuse, affirming that users could approach the court if their fundamental rights were infringed.

Government's Stand

The Central government argued that FCUs are not meant to curb criticism or satire but are focused solely on government-related content. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that the impugned rule applies only to information found in official government files. He maintained that intermediaries would initially evaluate content, with courts serving as the ultimate decision-makers.

Verdict and Implications

The High Court's ruling underscores the importance of judicial review in maintaining the balance between regulating fake news and preserving free speech. It rejects the notion of giving the government unchecked power to determine the veracity of online content, which could lead to state censorship.

How to Stay Informed

For further updates and to check the status of ongoing legal matters, visit the official website of the Bombay High Court.

Sources: Bombay High Court, IT Rules Amendment 2023, Judicial Review


© 2025 Hey Colleagues. All rights reserved.