Bombay HC quashes IT amendment rules, AIM and Editors Guild welcome verdict

The court held that the amendments were unconstitutional and violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

The Bombay High Court ruled on September 20, 2024, that the amended Information Technology (IT) Rules are unconstitutional. Specifically, Rule 3, which allowed the Central government to create Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify "fake and misleading" information about its operations on social media, was struck down. Following this decision, the Editors Guild of India and the Association of Indian Magazines (AIM) welcomed the verdict. They emphasised its significance for protecting freedom of expression and preventing state censorship.

While pronouncing the order, Justice Chandurkar opined that “the amendments are violative of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India". The matter was referred to the third judge after a division bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale delivered a split verdict in January 2024.

The IT Amendment Rules, 2023 were notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on April 6, 2023. The rules granted authority to a “fact check unit of the Central Government” to categorise and remove any online content pertaining to “any business of the Central Government” that is deemed “fake, false, or misleading.”

The effect of the rule would have been that the moment the “fact check unit of the Central Government” would have disputed the truth/veracity of a news item regarding “any business of the Central Government”, the fact of such disagreement alone would have obliterated the publisher’s freedom to publish and citizen’s right to access such information.

In June 2023, AIM filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the IT Amendment Rules, arguing they were ultra vires the Information Technology Act, 2000, and violated the right to freedom of speech and expression. Similarly, the Editors Guild also approached the court, contesting the constitutionality of certain provisions in the 2023 amendments.

In January 2024, the division bench delivered a split verdict, with Justice Patel ruling in favour of petitioners and striking down Rule 3 as unconstitutional, citing concerns about the potential for censorship. Justice Gokhale had upheld the validity on grounds that it targeted misinformation. Justice Chandurkar was subsequently appointed to provide a tie-breaker opinion.

Justice Chandurkar, while striking down the rules, further opined that the amendments also violated Article 21 and did not satisfy the "test of proportionality".

AIM praised its legal team, with support from the Internet Freedom Foundation, for their work in defending press freedom. The association also recognised the contributions of other petitioners and legal teams in the case. AIM views this win as vital for upholding free speech and protecting against potential government censorship.