Karnataka government’s proposed law criminalising the spread of fake news is perhaps the first time a state has attempted to define “fake news”, which by itself is sweeping in its mandate to include “anti-feminism” and “disrespect of Sanatan symbols”.
This is also perhaps the first time a state has proposed a law to ban fake news. The law and its provisions are somewhat similar to the Centre’s Fact Checking Unit (FCU) which was struck down by the Bombay High Court in its Kunal Kamra judgement.
Digital rights groups have cautioned against misuse of the law and government overreach saying it will have a “chilling effect” on free speech and will muzzle independent journalism.
However, Karnataka’s IT Minister Priyank Kharge said the state’s proposed law to ban fake news is still in its preliminary stages and that its “sole objective” is to “address the growing digital information disorder”.
“Our focus is strictly on tackling misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and fake news and nothing beyond that,” Kharge tweeted in defence of the draft Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025.
BOOM recaps the concerns raised against the bill.
What is Karnataka's Fake News Bill?
Karnataka’s proposed bill penalises any social media user for posting fake news on social media platforms with jail terms that may extend up to seven years and fine which may extend up to Rs 10 lakh or both. The law also proposes setting up special courts and the Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority.
The special courts will be empowered to hear cases against those accused of spreading fake news and any other provision of law the same attracts. It will also be authorised to issue “Correction Direction” or “Disabling Directions” to intermediaries, publishers, broadcasters or any other entity to take down content deemed to be fake after the registration of FIR till the conclusion of the trial or appeal or other legal proceedings arising therefrom.
The proposed Authority, comprising the state’s culture, information and broadcasting minister, one IAS officer, two representatives from social media platforms and one member each from the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the Karnataka Legislative Council, determines what is fake and what's not. The authority is also empowered to ban the publication and spread of fake news, misinformation, content that is anti-feminist, promotes superstitions or which “amounts” to “disrespect” of the Sanatan dharam.
Free Speech Concerns Raised By Digital Rights Group
Digital rights groups have raised concerns over the criminalising of speech and the chilling effect it may have on public discourse. They say the state cannot be an arbiter of truth, and that criminalising speech will have a “chilling effect” on thought, expression, criticism and independent journalism.
In a statement released on June 28, the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) warned that the state’s fake news Bill could serve as a framework for authorities to exercise regulatory control and issue blocking orders. The digital rights group said “instead of opting for a punitive approach” to combat misinformation and fake news, the Karnataka government should reconsider the various provisions of the Bill “as per the prevailing constitutional law jurisprudence in India”.
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) said, “criminal speech offences drafted in broad terms invite partisan or selective enforcement.”
“We have seen this play out before: the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India for chilling lawful expression through vague language. More recently, Kunal Kamra and several media bodies successfully challenged the Union Government’s “fact-checking unit” under the 2023 IT Rules on the same grounds — that the State should not be the arbiter of truth with the power to penalise dissent,” IFF’s statement read.
“The proposed law is yet to be officially released for consultation. However, misinformation by its very definition means false or inaccurate information shared without the intent to deceive, criminalising the sharing of misinformation can be extreme,” Rajneil Kamath, Founder Newschecker and Vice President of the Misinformation Combat Alliance told BOOM.
Any law that seeks to address misinformation should have definitional clarity, due to methodology and process and procedural certainty. Ambiguity can lead to misuse and selective enforcement, he added. Kamath said these laws must focus on providing additional context, timely corrections and risk mitigation techniques without curtailing free speech in any form or manner,
Bombay High Court’s Kunal Kamra judgment
This Bill comes in the face of a Bombay High Court’s unequivocal ruling from September 2024 when it struck down the Centre’s Fact Checking Unit (FCU) as unconstitutional.
Bombay High Court said the amendments to the Information and Technology Rules 2023—which allowed the constitution of the FCU—were unconstitutional after observing that expressions like “fake or false or misleading” were undefined and “vague”.
The HC said FCU would result in a “chilling effect” and the “absence of sufficient safeguards” would “tend to interfere” with fundamental rights to free speech.
FCU Vs Karnataka’s Fake News Bill
Prima facie it would seem the Centre’s FCU is similar to Karnataka’s law banning fake news. But experts say this is not so.
Experts suggest that though both the FCU and Karnataka’s proposed authority limit free speech, the state law is “broader” and more “severe” in its consequences. They further add that the state law has not defined “misinformation” and “disinformation” with “clarity”.
“In some ways, Karnataka’s proposed law is more severe than the IT Rules, 2021-based FCU that was struck down,” advocate Apar Gupta told BOOM. “This is because the draft law does not only provide powers for content takedowns but also criminal prosecution. Hence the vagueness is more severe in its consequences,” Gupta, Founder Director, IFF, added.
Prateek Waghre echoed similar concerns. He said, though Karnataka’s law and the FCU limited free speech, there are some differences.
“Karnataka’s bill is broader than the FCU which was limited to news concerning the business of the government (without defining it),” Waghre, an independent technology policy researcher, said.
“The state’s fake news bill is a lot more expansive and not limited to fact-checking. It also covers ‘fake news’ as a whole in Karnataka. However, it is unclear how this geographical limitation will work since the internet does not work that way,” Waghre added.
It is also impractical for a six-member committee to check all fake news. It also concentration of power limited to a few, he said. Waghre expressed concern over the criminalisation aspect as well. Even abetting is penalised he said. How will this part play out?, Waghre observed.
For all its flaws, the FCU didn’t go so far, Waghre said.
“Several police departments have their own fact-checking units, but this seems to be the first time a state has come out with a formal law. This is also the first time ‘fake news’ and ‘misinformation’ have been defined by a state, though they diverge significantly from academic consensus around how they should be defined,” Waghre said.
