SC urges balance while government says IT Rules not meant to curb satire, humour or criticism

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 10, 2026) sought balance between protecting the nation against fake online content and safeguarding the right to free speech while the Centre defended that its Information Technology Rules was not meant to curb humour, satire or criticism of the government.

“There is no intention under the statute (Information Technology Act) or the Rules to curb any humour, statute, expression of view, critical expression of view and criticism,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, addressed a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

In fact, the government had notified the formation of a Fact Checking Unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau through a notification issued in March 2024 via the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules as amended in April 2023. The FCU was supposed to act as a “deterrent” against the creation and dissemination of fake news or misinformation regarding the “business” of the Centre.

The Amendment Rules and the establishment of the FCU had come under the judicial scrutiny of the Bombay High Court through petitions filed by the Editors Guild of India and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra.

The High Court had eventually, in September 2024, struck down the FCU notification and concluded the amended IT Rules of 2023 “unconstitutional” and violative of Article 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (freedom and right to profession) of the Constitution. It had concluded that the expression “fake, false and misleading” in the Rules was “vague and hence wrong” in the absence of any definition. The High Court had said the government cannot assume the role of the “sole arbiter of truth”.

The Centre appealed in the Supreme Court against the High Court decision, saying it had no subversive intention to crush free speech.

Senior advocates Arvind Datar and N.H. Seervai, for parties including the Editors Guild, Association of Indian Magazines, News Broadcasters of Digital Association and Mr. Kamra, asked who in the FCU would decide if a particular content was fake or not.

“Who mans the FCU? How can such a unit be formed on the basis of a notification? The High Court had merely asked the government to frame proper Rules,” Mr. Datar submitted.

“The question raised in the case is of paramount importance. It would be better for the Supreme Court to lay down the law. The issues flagged by the High Court leads to the question of how to balance rights without destroying the individual Constitutional rights,” Chief Justice Kant observed.

The Chief Justice however indicated that some of the online platforms conducted themselves in an offensive manner. “You can damage a personal life… you can damage the nation… I am bothered about the impact on the nation,” Chief Justice Kant said.

Mr. Datar said whatever was misleading or fake should be taken down. “But then who defines ‘misleading’?” he asked the court.

“There should be clear guidelines," the CJI responded, "but, at the same time, shifting all the onus on the state machinery without putting any obligations on those who play mischief requires a lot of consideration” the CJI responded.

"When we see it, we know it is fake," Mr. Mehta interjected.

Mr. Datar said there were already very serious obligations in place for social media intermediaries.

Issuing notice on the special leave petition filed by the Union government, the court refused Mr. Mehta’s request to stay the High Court decision. The Bench said it preferred to straightaway hear the case on merits rather than digress on the question of any interim reliefs.