The Bombay high court on Thursday, July 7, asked if the mechanism of the Press Information Bureau (PIB), which has been in existence for long, is so inadequate that it requires the introduction of a Fact Check Unit (FCU).
The division bench of Justices Gautam S. Patel and Neela K. Gokhale began the final hearing on pleas challenging the new IT Rules that allow the government to identify “fake news” on social media and ask intermediaries to take them down.
The bench questioned the Union government’s “silence” on the need for amended Rules, which have been challenged by Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, the News Broadcast and Digital Association and the Association of Indian Magazines.
According to Bar and Bench, the judges asked:
“They are saying FCU is not introduced now, but PIB had existed since long. Where do we find an explanation in replies as to why that structure is inadequate and why you need amendment? Whenever PIB issues a clarification, every news channel and paper carries it.”
According to Indian Express, senior advocate Navroz Seervai, who is representing Kamra, said that the Rules send the message that “it is my way or the highway”. He said the government plans to ensure that social media covers “only what it wants and everything else is censored”, according to the report.
“It wants to take the role of parents or nanny of the public,” the lawyer said.
When he said that the impugned Rules violate the fundamental rights of citizens, the bench said, “No matter how laudable or high the motives are, if the effect is unconstitutional then it has to go.”
The bench also said that the government could not explain whether the existing mechanism was inadequate and what was the need for the FCU, according to IE.
The judges also raised a potential scenario that could arise during the campaign trail of the 2024 general elections. It asked, according to Bar and Bench:
“As we are approaching 2024, people will say things on the campaign trail. Suppose an online person questions the statements made on the campaign trail by a political spokesperson, calls it out and if FCU says remove it, how can it do that? Is that the business of the government? Can a site hosting this lose safe harbour if the government’s FCU flags it as false and they refuse to remove it?”
The judges also said that the rules seem to come from “fear of the unknown”, and the court will have to decide whether it is legitimate or not. They said:
“You do not understand the extent of the realm, reach and power of technology. This would not have been necessary in case of print. You just do not understand what the internet can do. Governments cannot do away with the internet as that is where they carry out their business. But it comes with its limitations. This is more like the fear of the unknown. And this is why the government has come up with this (FCU). Whether it is legitimate or not is what we have to decide.”