The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in the Union Government’s appeal challenging the Bombay High Court judgment which had stuck down Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 (IT Rules Amendment), which empowered the Central government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to regulate ‘fake news’ about its business finding it be violative of fundamental rights

During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the matter raises an important constitutional question on balancing freedom of expression with the regulation of misinformation on digital platforms.

The Bench noted that the High Court had primarily flagged concerns regarding the lack of clear guidelines governing the functioning of the government’s fact-check unit.

“All that the High Court says is you frame proper rules… The issues flagged by the High Court are also extremely important,” the Court remarked.

The Court emphasised that the real issue was to strike a balance between constitutional rights and regulatory mechanisms.“It is only a question of how to balance the rights without compromise with the Constitution,” the Bench observed.

Appearing for the Union Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the provisions were not intended to curb satire, humour, or criticism of the government.

“There is no intention either under the statute or otherwise to curb humour, satire, expression of view or critical expression,” Mr Mehta submitted.

He further contended that the IT Rules already impose obligations on intermediaries to remove unlawful content within specified timelines, and the fact-check mechanism was meant to address fake and misleading information relating to government business.

During the hearing, the Court also took note of procedural delays in the filing of the Special Leave Petition, which involved approximately 400 days’ delay, but proceeded to examine the matter on merits.

While petitioner sought an interim stay on the High Court’s ruling, the Bench declined to grant interim relief at this stage and instead indicated that the case should be heard and decided finally at the earliest.

“Such a matter is better decided finally at the earliest,” the Court stated.

The Court directed respondents to file their counter affidavits within six weeks, with rejoinders to be filed thereafter. It also clarified that journalists and media organisations who had appeared before the Bombay High Court may participate in the proceedings.

Appearances

SG Tushar Mehta Sr Adv Arvind Datar Sr Adv N H Seevai