Print media, including the Association of Indian Magazines (AIM) and Editors Guild of India, have joined the legal tussle against the “fact check unit by the Central Government,” mandated by the recently notified IT rules. 

On Wednesday, AIM and Editors Guild filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of this provision of the IT Rules Amendment, 2023 for being ultra vires the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000), and violating the right to freedom of speech and expression. 

Comedian and political satirist Kunal Kamra filed a plea against the IT rules in April, challenging the constitutionality of the fact-checking unit. As a result, the Bombay High Court delayed the notification of the fact-checking unit to July 10, in the Wedneday hearings the court extended the date to July 10.

The Bombay High Court directed the Government to file its Reply to AIM’s petition by June 20 and has listed the matters for final hearing on July 6 and 7, 2023.

Speaking on this, B Srinivasan, President of AIM and MD of Ananda Vikatan said, “The government chose a draconian path of creating a handpicked appointee group that could technically pull up any content and brand it as a “fake or misleading”, and under that pretext, censor it. This kind of arbitrary moves must be nipped in the bud and I am glad we at AIM can contribute to the dialogue for a reasonable solution to this problem that has been brought up on by the government.”

The Editors Guild of India in a press statement said, “The Editors Guild of India deeply appreciates the help of the legal team that has spearheaded this effort. The petition was drafted by Advocate Mr. Shadan Farasat along with Advocates Natasha Maheshwari and Hrishika Jain. The petition was filed by the Bombay counsel Bimal Rajshekhar.

Anant Nath, Vice President of AIM and Executive Publisher of Delhi Press further added, “The amendment made to the IT Rules with respect to a fact-checking unit with sweeping powers to determine what is “fake or misleading” is akin to censorship, against principles of natural justice, as well as against guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court itself in earlier cases. This has the potential to create an all-powerful Orwellian censorship system, which will have deeply adverse implications for press freedom. We are extremely pleased that notice has been issued and the rules stayed for now, and hope that they are withdrawn eventually.”

comment COMMENT NOW