SC urges balance while government says IT Rules not meant to curb satire, humour or criticism

Supreme Court seeks balance between free speech and curbing fake content as government defends IT Rules amid legal scrutiny.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 10, 2026) sought balance between protecting the nation against fake online content and safeguarding the right to free speech while the Centre defended that its Information Technology Rules was not meant to curb humour, satire or criticism of the government.

“There is no intention under the statute (Information Technology Act) or the Rules to curb any humour, statute, expression of view, critical expression of view and criticism,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, addressed a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

In fact, the government had notified the formation of a Fact Checking Unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau through a notification issued in March 2024 via the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules as amended in April 2023. The FCU was supposed to act as a “deterrent” against the creation and dissemination of fake news or misinformation regarding the “business” of the Centre.

The Amendment Rules and the establishment of the FCU had come under the judicial scrutiny of the Bombay High Court through petitions filed by the Editors Guild of India and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra.

The High Court had eventually, in September 2024, struck down the FCU notification and concluded the amended IT Rules of 2023 “unconstitutional” and violative of Article 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (freedom and right to profession) of the Constitution. It had concluded that the expression “fake, false and misleading” in the Rules was “vague and hence wrong” in the absence of any definition. The High Court had said the government cannot assume the role of the “sole arbiter of truth”.

The Centre appealed in the Supreme Court against the High Court decision, saying it had no subversive intention to crush free speech.