Latest news with #MisinformationandFakeNews(Prohibition)Bill
News18
29-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
'Fake News' Clause Removed: Karnataka Govt RevisMisinformation Bill After Facing Flak
Last Updated: The initial draft had proposed the creation of a 'Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority' and included severe penal provisions but this was seen as overreaching The Karnataka government is set to revise its proposed Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, after an earlier draft triggered widespread criticism and raised questions over legal tenability. The words 'fake news" have been removed from the new version and, as it stands revised titled the Karnataka Misinformation Regulation Bill, 2025, it is expected to be tabled during the monsoon session of the state assembly. According to sources, the scrutiny committee headed by state law minister HK Patil has cleared the draft, which is likely to be placed before the cabinet. News18 accessed a copy of the draft bill, which comes at a time when governments across India are stepping up digital regulation. WHAT DOES THE DRAFT BILL SAY? In the draft bill that will be submitted in the upcoming monsoon session beginning August 19, the definition of misinformation has been retained: 'knowingly or recklessly making a false or inaccurate statement of fact, whether wholly or in part, in the context in which it appears, excluding opinion, satire, religious or philosophical sermons, and parody – as long as a reasonable person would not interpret the content as factual". The bill defines 'communication" as dissemination of information to 10 or more persons in Karnataka, through any medium — including bots, computer resources, television, or in-person communication. This applies to content originating both inside and outside Karnataka, as long as it reaches people within the state. The offence of misinformation is defined as follows: 'no person, whether inside or outside Karnataka, shall communicate or abet the communication of misinformation to persons in Karnataka if such communication disrupts public tranquillity, affects the conduct of free and fair elections in any part of the state, or incites others to commit an offence. Anyone found guilty can be punished with imprisonment ranging from three months to five years and a fine. Abetment carries a punishment of up to two years' imprisonment and a fine." SPECIAL COURTS TO DIRECT MEDIA HOUSES The draft bill states that special courts may be established to issue directions to media houses to correct or take down content. Non-compliance can lead to up to two years' imprisonment and a daily fine of Rs 25,000. 'For the purpose of providing for speedy trial of offences under this Act, the State Government shall, with concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish Special Court comprising a Sessions Judge," the draft bill states. CONTROVERSIAL 'SANATAN' CLAUSE TO BE DROPPED? 'The first 'so-called draft' seen in the public domain was fake. We have been working on a comprehensive one that will control misinformation and also ensure that people get what is 'real news'," a source in the IT/BT ministry said. The bill had come under fire from several quarters after the draft included terms flagged as excessive, especially a clause that proposed a seven-year jail term for the 'publication of content amounting to disrespect of Sanatan symbols and beliefs on social media platforms". This clause was among the most controversial and is likely to be dropped or reworded, sources said. The revised version is presently under scrutiny of the IT BT, home, and law departments. The first two are reviewing the penal clauses, which were earlier flagged for their severity. Officials involved in the review said several portions of the earlier draft had been directly lifted from the Union government's 2019 Fake News (Prohibition) Bill. 'It mentions ministers like information and broadcasting, which is not even a state subject. Section 15, which deals with company offences, was also reportedly taken verbatim from Section 7 of the Union bill. All of this, officials said, has now been reviewed and reworked in the revised version. Even the Rs 10 lakh penalty was copied from the Centre's bill, all of it had to be reviewed and worked upon," a senior official told News18. In April last year, the ministry of corporate affairs introduced the draft Digital Competition Act to tackle anti-competitive behaviour by tech giants such as Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and X. In a similar development, X Corp (formerly Twitter) filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court in March, questioning the Centre's powers under Section 69A of the IT Act after being ordered to block more than 8,000 accounts in India. Later that year, Meta was fined Rs 213.14 crore by the Competition Commission of India for alleged violations of competition law linked to WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy, which reportedly allowed data to be shared across Meta platforms. WhatsApp was also asked to trace the origin of flagged messages, raising questions around its end-to-end encryption. It has challenged the 2021 IT Rules in the Delhi HC. State IT-BT minister Priyank Kharge had earlier told News18: 'We're not trying to change any policy but only trying to strengthen what already exists and ensure that there is 'news' and not misinformation that is given out to people," adding, 'the idea is to look at what already exists, connect the dots, and bring out an effective bill." Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Misinformation view comments Location : Bengaluru, India, India First Published: July 29, 2025, 06:30 IST News politics 'Fake News' Clause Removed: Karnataka Govt RevisMisinformation Bill After Facing Flak Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Leaked draft of fake news bill sparks legal concerns, govt to rework it
Bengaluru: The govt is set to revise its proposed Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, after a leaked draft triggered widespread criticism and raised questions over legal tenability. The redrafted version is expected to be tabled during the monsoon session of the legislature next month. Officials said the current draft is undergoing "inter-departmental scrutiny," with both IT-BT and home departments reviewing provisions — especially some penal clauses which have been flagged for their "harshness". "In its present form, the bill is untenable and would invite a lot of legal scrutiny," said an official in the IT-BT department. With growing concerns from civil society and legal experts, the govt appears to be treading cautiously to ensure the revised legislation is constitutionally sound and does not infringe on freedom of expression. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Sources say parts of the draft were prepared by "ill-informed" and "overzealous" individuals in the govt, while other sections were "lifted" directly from the Union govt's 2019 Fake News (Prohibition) Bill. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Susan Boyle Is Now so Thin and Looks Beautiful! Undo "For instance, it states the ministers who will head the authority are Kannada and culture and minister for information and broadcasting. State govts do not have a department of information and broadcasting. It is only the central govt. Also, the penalty of Rs 10 lakh is also taken from the central govt bill," said personnel. One glaring example of duplication officials said is Section 15 of the draft, which deals with offences committed by companies. This section has been reproduced verbatim from Section 7 of the 2019 Union bill. The bill also drew flak for an alleged "overzealous" clause proposing a seven-year jail term for "publication of content amounting to disrespect of Sanatan symbols and beliefs on social media platforms". Sources say this specific provision was among the most controversial and is likely to be dropped or reworded. IT-BT minister Priyank Kharge confirmed that the bill is being re-evaluated. "We will present it in the legislature only after a thorough scrutiny and consultation process," he said. To allay fears of media censorship, officials are also considering empanelling media professionals in the proposed regulatory authority. This move is aimed at reassuring media houses that their editorial independence will not be compromised.
The Print
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Karnataka's fake news bill won't survive a court challenge
The bill deprives social media intermediaries of their statutory immunity from state persecution for user-generated content, a legal protection commonly referred to in internet law as 'safe harbour'. India's nodal Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) provides for safe harbour protections and allows social media companies to host user content with conditional immunity, within a clearly defined legal framework. In contrast, Karnataka's fake news bill proposes to hold social media companies accountable for violating any provision of the proposed law. Karnataka's proposed Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, is poorly drafted and replete with structural infirmities. It is also at odds with existing central laws and its constitutional validity is questionable. Let's see how. The bill envisions a government-appointed Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority, with sweeping powers to preemptively block or ban content it deems illegal. However, it does not clarify how these powers will sync with the safe harbour protections under the IT Act. Without safe harbour protections, social media companies could face a deluge of criminal penalties for content that is difficult to monitor and filter, such as superstitions or unscientific claims, both deemed illegal under the bill. The Authority's blocking powers create a parallel mechanism to the content-blocking procedures already prescribed under the Centre's IT Act. The lack of standard procedural safeguards, such as the need to notify penalised parties or offer them a fair hearing, further disregards the minimum standards set by the IT Act. That law limits content blocking to specific grounds such as public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or preventing incitement to an offence — all of which correspond to the restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Also read: Karnataka's new misinformation bill can penalise social media users for honest mistakes Constitutionality in question Lawmaking in India seems stuck in a time loop: each new attempt to regulate online misinformation repeats old constitutional mistakes. In the past two years, multiple well-intentioned policy interventions have tried to crack the whip on misleading online speech – including the now-withdrawn Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, the Fact Check Unit under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, state-funded media monitoring centres in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab, and even the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2024. Most constitutional law experts agree that these efforts exceed the permissible restrictions on speech by allowing the state to become the arbiter of truth. The Bombay High Court struck down the IT Rules provision that empowered the Union government to set up a Fact Check Unit. The court ruled that the provision was unconstitutionally vague, exceeded the limits enshrined under Article 19(2), and had a chilling effect on free speech. The Supreme Court of India has also clearly held that free speech may not be restricted on grounds beyond those enumerated in Article 19(2). Restricting speech simply because it is labelled 'fake news' creates confusion among users and social media companies alike, given the broad range of content that could fall under this rubric, from satire to critical reporting on government policy. Any law that restricts misleading speech must be proportionate to be considered constitutional. The definitions of 'fake news' and 'misinformation' in the Karnataka bill are vague, constitute an overreach, and exceed the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2). For instance, speech can be categorised as 'misinformation' if it is 'prejudicial to public health', a restriction not recognised under the Constitution. The enforcement powers granted to the Authority allow it to judge whether speech is 'disrespectful to Sanatan Dharma', 'unscientific', or 'superstitious'. These catchall and subjective limitations are constitutionally fraught and leave room for government misuse, as well as preventative hyper removal by intermediaries seeking to avoid liability. Also read: Draft DPDP Rules see no difference between India's allies and adversaries on data transfer Lack of independence The functional independence and competence of the proposed Authority are also in question. The bill allows the Karnataka government to constitute the six-member Authority. Its composition includes the Minister for Kannada and Culture, two members from the state legislature, two representatives from social media companies, and one civil servant. This means that a body with sweeping powers to block content critical of the government will be entirely appointed by the executive. It will act as the judge, jury, and enforcer, with no institutional safeguards like fixed tenure, protected salary, or minimum judicial qualifications, which usually guarantee the independence of any regulator. The lack of judicial representation further undermines the Authority's legal prowess to adjudicate what constitutes illegal content. The Karnataka government's concerns about regulating misleading speech may be genuine, but the heavy-handed approach adopted in this bill does not seem to pass constitutional muster. A fixation on penalising false speech or 'fake news' in toto won't survive legal challenge. It is time lawmakers in India realise that the problem of misleading speech cannot be solved through isolated, punitive measures. Instead, the government should focus on building collaborative frameworks with digital intermediaries, who have limited capacities to identify and moderate illegal content amidst the avalanche of posts on their platforms. For instance, YouTube's Priority Flagger Program allows governments and non-governmental organisations to flag potentially illegal content for expedited review. Such models ensure a steady stream of flagged content while preserving procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards. Measures like these should be explored to ensure any restriction on a fundamental right remains within constitutional bounds. The author works at Koan Advisory Group, a technology policy consulting firm. Views are personal. This article is part of ThePrint-Koan Advisory series that analyses emerging policies, laws and regulations in India's technology sector. Read all the articles here. (Edited by Prashant)
