"Clear Guidelines Needed," Centre Tells Supreme Court On Challenge To Bombay HC Striking Down Fact Check Units

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear the Centre's plea challenging the Bombay High Court's 2024 verdict striking down the establishment of Fact Check Unit under the amended IT Rules.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 saying that, "There is no intent to suppress any humour or satire..".

"The way in which some of these platforms are acting..how dangerous they are..I am not on an individual..clear demarcated guidelines are needed..", SG Mehta added.

CJI Surya Kant noted that it would be better if the Supreme Court laid down the law and issued notice on the plea. 

In 2024, a tiebreaker judge of the Bombay High Court had delivered his decision in the petitions challenging the IT Rules Amendment which established a Fact Check Unit to identify fake, false and misleading posts on social media. Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild, the News Broadcast Digital Association and the Association of Indian Magazine challenged the constitutionality of the fact check unit established under the amended IT Rules.

Earlier, the high court division bench comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale delivered a split verdict in the petitions challenging Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023. In the split verdict, Justice Patel struck down the amended rule establishing FCU while Justice Gokhale ruled against the petitioners.

The petitioners had challenged the provisions establishing FCU, contending that the rule was arbitrary and unconstitutional, as it violated Article 14 (Right To Equality), Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech), Article 19(1)(g) (Right to business and trade), and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000, which provides safe harbour to intermediaries.

They also argued that an executive authority cannot be tasked with deciding what can or cannot be posted on social media. Furthermore, they contended that there was a violation of natural justice as there was no provision for a show cause notice. Additionally, it was argued that the terms "fake," "false," "misleading," and "government business" were not defined and therefore were too broad. They also contended that the government cannot be the judge of its own cause and decide what is fake, false, or misleading.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union Government had argued before the Bombay High Court that the Central Government is not the final arbiter for deciding fake or false news on social media. "Suppose I made a post that my learned friend is corrupt. He invokes the provision. Then the intermediary may decide. The court may decide. I am not an arbiter. The government and private parties are not arbiters. We are only informants. You (Intermediary) only have to show how your section 79 protection will continue. You will have to balance freedom of speech with other people's rights," Mehta had said.

He also maintained that in cases where the government is the victim, the Fact Check Unit (FCU) would be limited to "Government Business" as stated in the constitution. Mehta emphasized that the FCU was not intended to curb free speech, satire, or criticism.

Case Title: Union of India vs Kunal Kamra

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mahadevan

Hearing Date: March 10, 2026