2 days ago
If the draft fake news Bill is the cure for misinformation, Karnataka may have to ban irony next
Written by Meghna Bal
The Karnataka legislature recently released the Karnataka Mis-information and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025. Broadly, the Bill attempts to criminalise the spread of fake news and misinformation within Karnataka. The mechanism for enforcing this prohibition is a 'fake news on social media regulatory authority' comprising the Minister for Kannada and Culture, members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and council, representatives of social media platforms, and an IAS officer. If any social media users are found guilty by this authority of spreading fake news, they could be imprisoned for up to seven years.
The sweeping provisions of the Karnataka Bill have sparked concern about its potential chilling effect on free speech. The Bill defines 'misinformation' as any willful or reckless false or inaccurate expression of a statement of fact. The definition also excludes 'opinions, religious or philosophical sermons, satire, comedy or parody or any other form of artistic expression', provided a 'reasonable man' would not misconstrue it as a statement of fact.
A reasonable man (or person) is a hypothetical individual whose behaviour and level of care in any given situation are judged according to commonly accepted standards of good judgement and societal norms. In the context of speech, the standard is typically used in cases regarding defamation or harassment, as a means of objectively understanding whether any given speech qualifies as an offending one. Yet, 'reasonableness' is an inherently vague and subjective standard, one that shifts with socio-cultural expectations. In the context of the Karnataka fake news Bill, the reasonableness standard will also possibly be informed by politics, given that half the members of the regulatory authority, including its head, are politicians. In effect, by hinging exemptions on whether a 'reasonable man' might misinterpret them as fact, the Bill leaves all expression vulnerable to being labelled fake news.
It creates a potent risk for satire as people (even reasonable ones) are often fooled into believing it is true. In 2012, the satirical news website The Onion released a story stating that North Korea's Kim Jong Un was the 'Sexiest Man Alive' for that year. The story was taken seriously by China's People's Daily Online, the digital version of the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, which reprinted it in full as a legitimate event. The Onion went on to claim, in jest, that the People's Daily was their subsidiary. Under the Karnataka Bill, The Onion's story as well as its subsequent joke could be treated as an offense.
Fortunately, the Karnataka fake news Bill is not even remotely constitutionally tenable. There is a wealth of constitutional precedent surrounding false information and what can and cannot be policed in its name. The courts are clear on the fact that restrictions on speech must be clear, narrowly tailored, and fall within the permissible bounds on speech, recognised under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. These include grounds like sovereignty, national security, diplomatic relations, public order, morality, decency, contempt of court, defamation, or the incitement of an offense. In Kaushal Kishor vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that these restrictions were comprehensive enough to account for any attack on an individual, groups, society, the judiciary, the state or the country. And it was not open to the state to add to these restrictions. Thus, speech cannot be restricted purely on the grounds that it is fake.
In addition, any law seeking to restrict speech must be proportional. The test of proportionality ensures that there are sufficient guardrails in place to keep any restriction on a fundamental right from overstepping its bounds. Here again, the Karnataka Bill fails because it opens many forms of speech up to subjective attacks from the state.
The Karnataka fake news Bill is an egregious document, not only for its constitutional failings but also the clumsy way it has been put together. Part of its Statement of Objects and Reasons, which is a part of a law that sets out the rationale for why the Bill is needed, was borrowed verbatim from the Prohibition of Fake News on Social Media Bill, 2022. Indeed, the borrowing was so faithful that even the title of the 2022 Bill was copy-pasted without correction. Adding insult to injury is the fact that it also attempts to open opinion up to scrutiny, which, at its very essence, is meant to be separate from statements of fact. The whole exercise makes a mockery of the pressing problem created by the spread of malicious falsities that are wrecking the fabric of human society, not only in India, but across the world.
The problem of fake news is complex. No law offers a silver bullet, especially because any law targeting speech can be weaponised. It demands thoughtful consideration and a focus on evidence-based solutions that have been shown to protect the public from the harmful effects of deliberate misinformation. Most of all, however, it requires leaders to cast expedience aside in favour of principle. That said, if the Karnataka government believes that its fake news Bill is the cure for misinformation, it may have to ban irony next.
The writer is the director of the Esya Centre, a tech policy focussed think tank based in New Delhi. Views are personal
