SC agrees to examine Centre’s plea against HC verdict striking down IT rules

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine the Centre’s plea challenging a Bombay High Court verdict that struck down amendments to Information Technology Rules aimed at regulating fake and false content posted on social media against the government.

The top court did not stay the 2024 High Court verdict, which struck down the amended Information Technology Rules and termed them “unconstitutional”, even as a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the original petitioners, including stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, and the Association of Indian Magazines.

HC struck down rules amended in 2023

The High Court struck down the rules amended in 2023 to empower the central government to establish a Fact-Check Unit (FCU) to identify “fake, false, or misleading” information regarding “government business” on social media. If the FCU flagged content under those rules, social media intermediaries such as X, Facebook, or YouTube would have to take it down or risk losing their safe harbour immunity.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, sought a stay on the High Court’s order, arguing that the government did not intend to “block content completely” but rather to regulate misinformation.

CJI expresses concern

The CJI expressed concern over the current state of social media platforms.

“The way some of these platforms are behaving nowadays… look at the illustrations placed on record, how dangerously (they operate),” the CJI said, specifically pointing to fake messages concerning the Indian Army and national policies.

He questioned whether the current system shifts the entire burden onto the machinery without imposing obligations on intermediaries.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for one of the respondents, said existing rules already allow for the removal of content within 24 hours. The 2023 amendments were flawed because “misleading information” remained undefined, he said.

“Following the Kartar Singh precedent, what is misleading is not defined,” Datar said, adding that any problematic content cited by the government had already been removed under existing protocols.

The bench condoned the 400-day delay on the part of the Centre in filing the appeal and directed counter-affidavits to be filed within four weeks.

Legal battle

The legal battle centres around the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023. On September 20, 2024, a single-judge bench of Justice AS Chandurkar of the high court held that the amended rules, being vague and broad, had the potential of causing a chilling effect not only on an individual but also on the social media intermediary.

Justice Chandurkar served as the tie-breaker judge after a division bench issued a split verdict on the matter earlier.

Following the third judge’s decision, a division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Neela Gokhale formally pronounced the verdict on a bunch of petitions filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, the News Broadcast and Digital Association and the Association of Indian Magazines challenging the new regulations.

“In view of the majority opinion, Rule 3 (1) (V) is declared unconstitutional and is struck down. The petitions are accordingly allowed,” the court had said.