Unwarranted curbs: On the Centre’s move on a ‘fact-checking unit’
Fact-checking cannot be an excuse to impose censorship
The Centre’s move to create a ‘fact-checking unit’ empowered to order the removal of ‘fake or false or misleading’ information from digital and social media platforms was never likely to succeed. Justice A.S. Chandurkar of the Bombay High Court struck down the amended rule, in a tie-breaking ruling after a two-judge Bench, in January, was split over its constitutional validity. In an opinion that makes it a 2:1 decision, he agreed with the view of Justice G.S. Patel, who had held that the provision violated the right to freedom of expression and sought to coercively classify speech as true or false based on vague and undefined terms. The rule, introduced as an amendment in 2023 to the rules governing information technology intermediaries and digital media ethics, meant that once the fact-checking unit flagged a piece of information on a social media platform as fake, false or misleading, the platform was bound to take it down. Failure to do so would result in its losing its ‘safe harbour’ protection, or exemption from legal action for third party content hosted on a platform. Editors and publishers rightly saw the creation of a fact-checking unit in the Press Information Bureau as a mechanism by which the Centre could censor anything that it disputes. Political satirists will be forced into self-censorship, argued comedian Kunal Kamra. The government contended that recklessly published material that was contrary to truth cannot have constitutional protection and that aggrieved platforms were free to approach the courts for remedy.
However, two of the three judges have found the rule unconstitutional, noting that the terms ‘fake’, ‘false’ or ‘misleading’ were not defined and there was no scope for redress provided in the rules. Another point that went against the government was that the restriction was applied only to information about the Centre, and not other kinds of information. Justice Chandurkar also agreed with Justice Patel that a restriction on free speech based on whether something is true or false was not one of the circumstances listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution for imposing reasonable restrictions. The other judge on the Bench, Justice Neela Gokhale, had upheld the rule, holding that it was not vaguely worded and that there was no bar on a platform publishing a disclaimer to retain its safe harbour protection. She also rejected the idea that such a rule would have a chilling effect on free speech. The prevalence of misinformation or false information is a problem that undoubtedly requires to be tackled, but it cannot be an excuse to create a mechanism by which the government becomes a judge in its own cause or the sole arbiter of what information about itself is misleading.
Sri Lanka’s verdict: On the Island nation’s ninth Presidential election
The spirit of the mandate of the presidential poll was clear — for change
The people of Sri Lanka have voted for change in the ninth presidential election with their nod to Anura Kumara Dissanayake of the National People’s Power (NPP). Even though Mr. Dissanayake, also the chief of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), had to go through a second round of counting — a first since the introduction of the system of executive presidency in 1978 — the spirit of the mandate is for a change and a perceptible shift away from the established, traditional parties and groups that dominated the political landscape. It is remarkable that the JVP, a party with Marxist origins, that is leading the NPP, has been able to get about 42% of the vote share, unlike its poor showing in 2019 and 2020. And though lower than in 2015 and 2019, voter turnout was about 79.5%. Given their constraints, all the contestants conducted themselves in a way that reflected their faith in the democratic system. It is also no surprise that the purpose for which the popular uprising Aragalaya (‘struggle’ in Sinhala) took place, found resonance in the campaign and verdict.
As economic woes had triggered the uprising, all the contenders had focused on the economic factor. Mr. Dissanayake told The Hindu recently that fixing the battered economy would be among his priorities. Despite being a Leftist, the JVP leader appears receptive to welcoming private and foreign investments. His election manifesto talks of renegotiating, rather than scrapping, with the IMF the $2.9 billion bailout agreement. What Mr. Dissanayake should not overlook is that he has to adopt a consensual path while implementing his economic policies and programmes. It is also going to be challenging when it comes to the other facets of governance and how he will be able to ensure a “system change” as he has repeatedly attacked the present “corrupt political culture”. The promise to hold elections to provincial councils — a tier of government that the JVP had once opposed — must be reassuring to Tamils. In the area of foreign relations, Mr. Dissanayake, dubbed by his critics a “pro-China” leader, is expected to extend his pragmatism — he did visit India early this year. His manifesto also mentions that Sri Lanka’s territory would not be allowed “to threaten or risk the national security of any country in the region including India”. But it remains to be seen how the new President will translate into action his electoral promise of abolishing the current system of executive presidency, a matter that has refused to die down in the political discourse of the country for over 30 years. Mr. Dissanayake, who will be assuming charge under not so comfortable conditions, requires understanding and cooperation from every section of Sri Lankan society.
