SC stays Centre's notification on setting up Fact Check Unit under PIB to identify fake news

This comes after the Centre on Wednesday notified the fact check unit under the Press Information Bureau (PIB) to monitor online content pertaining to the government for accuracy.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the March 20, 2024 notification by the Union government to establish a fact check unit in respect of the business of the central government until the Bombay High Court finally decided the validity of the Information Technology Rules, 2021 and examined its impact on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra suspended the operation of the notification issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

After hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Darius Khambata for stand up comedian Kunal Kamra and others, the court set aside the third single-bench order declining interim relief in the matter.

The court said the notification would need to be stayed at this stage as its impact on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) would call for a detailed analysis.

During the hearing, Khambata said as the fact check unit has been notified just on March 20, the government can now issue directions to intermediaries to take down content, which is the ultimate irony.

"The FCU it is the biggest irony because PIB was supposed to put our correct information of the government," he said.

Mehta said it is notable that no intermediary has challenged the notification. Referring to the huge impact of fake news due to the use of social media, he said the fact check unit has been notified subject to the outcome of the hearing, scheduled on April 15 before the Bombay High Court.

"We are dealing with a medium which is an uncontrollable and spans cross border as well. What bothered government is that false news of the government being flashed across intermediaries," he said.

He said the ultimate arbiter is not the government which would just alert whether the information as per its record is fake or false.

"This is restricted to only and only government business. If someone criticises the prime minister, it would not fall under this," he said.

The bench, however, said, "We are of the considered view that questions before the High Court deal with core questions on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Pending adjudication by HC, we desist to deal on merits which may foreclose assessment by the third judge. We are of the view that notification dated March 20, 2024, after rejection of application of interim relief, needs to be stayed."

The court pointed out that the challenge to the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(5) involved serious constitutional question and the impact of the rule on free speech and expression would need to be analysed by the High Court.