This law, aimed at addressing misinformation and fake news in Karnataka, has sparked significant debate and criticism. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a global organization dedicated to safeguarding journalist freedom, has warned that the draft bill could harm press freedom and mitigate journalistWhities.
In a recent statement, Karuna Majumder,.fold for India, emphasized the importance of criminalizing vague definitions of “fake news” without such oversight. The Karnataka government must ensure that any legal measures to combat misinformation fully safeguard press freedom and uphold journalists’ rights to report without fear of reprisal.
According to several media reports, the draft bill, which was previously leaked, proposes harsh penalties for spreading “fake news.” The bill could seek up to seven years in prison and a fine of 1 million rupees, alongside broad prohibitions on the dissemination of content deemed “anti-feminist” or “disrespectful of Sanatan (Hindu) symbols.” Additionally, the law would establish special courts and limit anticipatory bail for accused individuals.
The state Information Technology Minister, Priyank Kharge, claims the bill aims to counter harmful misinformation, particularly during elections. However, the draft has drawn criticism from digital groups, who argue that the mechanism for determining what qualifies as misinformation lacks clear methodology and standards. These groups documented concerns about the lack of clarity and lack of safeguards for journalists, referring to the bill as authoritarian.
The government’s proposed bill has drawn comparisons to the Indian federal IT (Information Technology) rules of 2021, which allow government authorities to unilaterally label online content as “fake.” These rules were subject to scrutiny by the Bombay High Court in 2024, when they were largely upheld by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Kharge did not respond to a direct permission request from the CPJ, as the state Info Tech Minister presumes confidentiality. Central Column journalist Apar Gupta highlighted the bill’s limitation in establishing clear measures for fact-checking and detecting fake content, arguing that the mechanism is inadequate. He called for literary examination of the draft law to identify gaps in its actionable safeguards for journalists.
