Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has rejected the interim application filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and others seeking to direct the Central Government not to notify the Fact Check Unit until the opinion of the third judge is pronounced.

Justice AS Chandurkar, the third judge hearing the case, stated that the petitioner did not make a case for the court to pass an order to continue the statement made by the Central Government not to notify the Fact Check Unit (FCU).

The high court said that the opinion of the third judge on the interim relief will now be placed before the earlier division bench to pass appropriate orders.

The high court rejecting the interim application effectively allows the Central Government to notify the Fact Check Unit under the amended IT Rules to identify and order take down of fake, false, and misleading news on social media. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing an application filed by Stand-Up Comedian Kunal Kamra and others seeking a direction to be issued to the Central Government to notify the Fact-Check Unit under the amended IT Rules until the third judge gives his opinion.

The division bench of the high court 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 division bench of the high court passed the judgement in the petitions filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild, the News Broadcast Digital Association and the Association of Indian Magazine challenging the constitutionality of the fact check unit established under the amended IT Rules.

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai argued that the central government had made a statement that the FCU would not be notified until the final judgment, emphasizing that the final judgment would only be pronounced after the third judge gives his opinion on the earlier differing division bench to pronounce the majority view.

He added that the two judges reached the opposite conclusions on the constitutionality and vires of the rule itself, which is a ground for considering the importance of the current status quo.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Ministry of Information and Technology, opposed the interim stay to not notify the FCU. He argued that the court was dealing with a medium not restricted by geographical limits.

He added that the entire world was grappling with how to tackle fake news, and India was trying to address this problem with a minimalistic approach.

Case title: Kunal Kamra & Ors vs UOI