Ban to 7-year jail: Fears of abuse over Karnataka Bill to curb fake news

Indian Express

a day ago

Defining fake news in sweeping terms to include content that is deemed 'anti-feminism' and 'disrespect of Sanatan symbols'; prescribing a seven-year jail term for social media users held guilty of posting 'fake news' as decided by a committee headed by the state Information & Broadcasting Minister; setting up special courts to deal with cases under the law — Karnataka's Bill to curb fake news raises several questions of free speech and state overreach.
The Karnataka Mis-Information and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, in the name of prohibiting misinformation and fake news, empowers a committee of lawmakers to identify and label content on social media as 'fake news.' It is the first of its kind state legislation to deal with digital platforms and free speech.
'Any social media users, if found guilty by the Authority for posting fake news on the social media platform shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to seven years and fine which may extend up to Rs 10 lakh or with both,' the Bill states.
That 'Authority,' under Section 5 of the Bill, includes the Minister for Kannada and Culture Information and Broadcasting as the ex-officio Chairperson; one member each from the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council to be nominated by their respective Houses; two representatives from social media platforms appointed by the state government and a senior bureaucrat as Secretary.
This Authority's mandate is to 'ensure complete ban on promotion and spread of fake news' including 'posting of contents which are abusive and obscene including anti-feminism and insult to the dignity of the female'; 'disrespect of sanatan symbols and beliefs' among others.
The Authority is also tasked with ensuring 'only those content(s) are posted on the social media platform which are based on authentic research on the subjects related to science, history, religion, philosophy, literature.'
This Bill comes in the face of an unequivocal ruling by the Bombay High Court last September that struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the amended Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021 which empowered the government to identify 'fake news' on social media platforms through a 'Fact Check Unit' (FCU). The Court had held that lack of judicial oversight in the Rules was unconstitutional.
The Bill also makes the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita's provision on granting anticipatory bail inapplicable to offences under the proposed law.
The Bill's descriptions of fake news and misinformation widen the scope of abuse and misuse. For instance, fake news is described under Section 2(i) of the Bill as 'purely fabricated content' and 'editing audio or video which results in the distortion of facts and/or the context.' Misinformation is defined as 'knowingly or recklessly making a false or inaccurate statement of fact.'
The provision states that 'opinions, religious or philosophical sermons, satire, comedy or parody or any other form of artistic expression' are exempted from the definition. What constitutes 'artistic expression' is not defined in the Bill.
In January 2024, Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay HC had also struck down the Centre's IT rules for vague and overbroad terms such as 'fake,' 'false,' and 'misleading.' 'Vagueness and overbreadth are both linked to the concept of the chilling effect,' the ruling had said.
In the landmark 2013 ruling in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, striking down 66A of the Information Technology Act that allowed blocking of content, the Court had emphasised that vague definitions cannot be justified to curb free speech.
'Information that may be grossly offensive or which causes annoyance or inconvenience are undefined terms which take into the net a very large amount of protected and innocent speech. A person may discuss or even advocate by means of writing disseminated over the internet information that may be a view or point of view pertaining to governmental, literary, scientific or other matters which may be unpalatable to certain sections of society. It is obvious that an expression of a view on any matter may cause annoyance, inconvenience or may be grossly offensive to some,' the Court had said.
Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More