Political dispensations, irrespective of their ideological hue, seem inclined to trample on individual rights — especially when their own capacity to govern is brought to question. A case in point is the tragedy in Bengaluru earlier this month when 11 people died and many others were injured during a stampede following Royal Challengers’ win in the Indian Premier League (IPL) tournament. The Congress government in the State was attacked for its crowd handling.

Since then, the government has mooted a slew of egregious laws aimed at crowd management, controlling hate crimes and preventing harmful online content. Among these, the Karnataka Mis-information and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025 seeks to penalise the offences of ‘mis-information’ and purveying ‘fake news’ with jail terms of two-five years and fine in the first instance and seven years and a fine extending up to ₹10 lakh in the latter case. The draft bill proposes to establish an Authority that will ensure a complete ban on posting of content on social media that might be construed as “anti-feminism” on one hand or amounts to “disrespect of Sanatan symbols and beliefs” on the other. The Authority is also proposed to be tasked with ensuring that content posted on social media is based on “authentic research on the subjects related to science, history, religion, philosophy, literature et al”. However, the Authority does not include any scientist nor philosopher or even a journalist as a member. It will consist of the Minister for Kannada and Culture Information and Broadcasting as its ex-officio chairperson as well as an MLA and an MLC besides two representatives from social media platforms and an IAS officer. It goes on to define ‘fake news’ and ‘misinformation’ in wide terms and categorises them as cognisable and non-bailable offences.

The Supreme Court has ruled against such attempts to gag freedom of speech and expression. In Shreya Singhal-versus-Union of India (March 2015), the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (which provides for a jail term for ‘offensive messages’) as being violative of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause — howsoever unpopular or, indeed, ‘anti-feminism’ or ‘disrespectful of Sanatan symbols and beliefs’ as the case may be — is protected under Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) pertaining to ‘reasonable restrictions’ to freedom of speech kicks in.

Within Article 19(2), there are specific restrictions prescribed, namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The proposed law satisfies none of these reasonable restrictions and will likely be struck down by the courts. No government should attempt to suppress citizens who question its actions.

Published on June 26, 2025