The Supreme Court on Tuesday  heard the Union Government’s petition challenging  the Bombay High Court’s  September 2024 judgment that  struck down  provisions of  the Information Technology Rules allowing the Central Government to set up  Fact Check Units (FCU). 

Court Calls Issue ‘Paramount Importance’
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymala Bagchi and Justice R Mahadevan observed  that the issue was of “paramount importance” and  said that the Supreme Court would lay down the law on the matter.

However, the court  declined the request made by  Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to stay the High Court’s judgment. 

What The 2023 IT Amendment Says:
Under  the 2023 amendment to the Information Technology framework,  social media platforms could  lose their legal  protection if they failed  to remove content that had been  marked as fake by the Centre’s Fact Check Unit (FCU). 

The Bombay High Court delivered its  judgment in petitions filed by Kunal Kamra, Editors Guild of India, News Broadcasters and Digital Association and Association of Indian Magazines among others. 

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing  for the respondents, argued  that the Centre’s Petition was filed  with several days of delay  in both filing and  re-filing, even though  the High Court’s  judgment was delivered in September 2024. 

Datar also argued  that under the new 2025 Information Technology Rules, the Fact Check Unit (FCU) had in fact become superfluous.

CJI Stresses Need For Social Media Regulation:
However, the Chief Justice of India did not accept the objections based on delay and said that the Court would examine the matter on merits. The CJI also stressed the need for stringent provisions for social media platforms.

“Look at the way some of these platforms are behaving… how dangerous are these…such fake news can damage reputation of the institution as well. Clear demarcated guidelines is needed,” the CJI said.

Declining the Solicitor General’s request to stay the High Court’s judgment, the CJI said "No, not at this stage. We will decide the main matter itself,"

Bombay High Court’s Split Verdict:
Earlier, in January 2024, a division bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court had delivered a split verdict on the issue.

The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court then referred the matter to a third judge, Justice A.S. Chandurkar, who agreed with Justice Patel’s view.

Justice Chandurkar said, “I am of the opinion that the amendments are violative of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India.” He also added that the amendments infringe Article 12 and do not satisfy the “test of proportionality.”

In his plea, Kunal Kamra argued that he relies on social media platforms to post his content. He said the Rules could lead to arbitrary restrictions on his content,  as his posts could be blocked or removed, and his social media accounts could also be banned.

Case Details: Union of India vs Kunal Kamra and Ors. 

Diary No. 60880-2024 and connected cases.