The Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 20255, introduced ostensibly to curb the spread of false information online, reveals a deeply troubling architecture when examined closely. Behind the rhetoric of ‘public safety and digital hygiene’ lies a bill that is vague in its definitions, excessive in its penalties, unchecked in its enforcement mechanisms, and incompatible with constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Far from protecting the public, this Bill—if enacted—would allow the government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison users for social media posts deemed false, disrespectful, anti-feminist, or culturally inappropriate, without clear definitions, independent oversight, or constitutional safeguards.
A bill rooted in executive power, not due process nor public dialogue
The Bill’s legislative process betrays its undemocratic spirit. Though the Congress government had promised action against fake news in its 2023 manifesto, no draft was publicly released, no white paper issued, and no consultation held with journalists, civil society, or digital rights experts took place before the introduction of such a proposed law.
Instead, as reported by the Deccan Herald on June 20, 2025, details emerged through a leak, revealing shocking provisions: up to 7 years’ imprisonment, ₹10 lakh fines, non-bailable offences, and a new Authority chaired by the Information Minister to regulate speech on social media (Deccan Herald, 20 June 2025). The News Minute corroborated that the draft criminalises “anti-feminist” content and “disrespect of Sanatan symbols”.
This clandestine process stands in stark contrast to international best practices, where media regulation is subject to extensive parliamentary debate, judicial scrutiny, and civil society participation.
Analysis of the Bill
I. Vague, overbroad, and unconstitutional definitions
A. Misinformation and Fake News: Undefined danger zones
The Bill defines “misinformation” (Section 2(k)) as a knowingly or recklessly false or inaccurate statement of fact, excluding satire or opinion—unless a “reasonable man” might mistake it for truth. This subjective test invites arbitrary enforcement.
The term “fake news” (Section 2(i)) covers misquotations, distorted videos, and fabrications, but offers no harm threshold or proof requirement. While the harm these phenomena cause is real, the Bill fails to set clear thresholds for harm or intention. Even minor inaccuracies or parodic edits could potentially attract criminal liability, creating a chilling effect on journalism, activism, and online discourse.
This echoes the unconstitutional vagueness that led the Supreme Court to strike down Section 66A of the IT Act in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where terms like “offensive” and “menacing” were ruled too vague to be the basis for arrest and prosecution.
The Karnataka Bill repeats the same error, criminalising falsehood without requiring intent to deceive, incite, or defame, contrary to both domestic precedent and global free speech norms.
B. Unconstitutional grounds for speech restriction
Section 3 criminalises misinformation that is “public health, public safety, public tranquillity or the conduct of free and fair elections.” These terms, especially public tranquillity, health, or fair elections, are not defined in the Bill, nor are they part of the constitutionally permissible grounds under Article 19(2) for restricting speech. Even “public tranquillity” is broader and vaguer than “public order”, the actual constitutional category.
In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), the Court warned that mere discomfort or offense cannot justify censorship, by providing that anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. However, the Karnataka Bill violates this standard.
II. Criminalising Falsehood: Disproportionate and draconian
A. Harsh jail terms for speech offences
The Bill introduces harsh criminal penalties:
- Section 3(2): 2–5 years’ imprisonment for misinformation.
- Section 7: Up to 7 years’ jail and ₹10 lakh fine for “fake news” posted on social media.
- Section 12: All offences are non-bailable and cognisable.
This is a stunning escalation from existing laws; these are staggering penalties for speech-based offences, harsher than for some forms of assault or property crime. Even defamation, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, carries a maximum 2-year sentence. Thus, under the new Bill, an inaccurate tweet or edited meme can trigger a multi-year jail term.
B. Bail denied, presumption of innocence reversed
The offences are made cognisable and non-bailable (Section 12). This means police can arrest without a warrant and courts can deny bail unless the accused proves innocence at the pre-trial stage—effectively reversing the presumption of innocence. Additionally, Section 12 makes it nearly impossible to secure bail. If the Special Public Prosecutor opposes release, the Court must find the accused “not guilty” at the pre-trial stage to grant bail, reversing the presumption of innocence, and creating a perverse system where accusation is equal to incarceration.
This turns pre-trial procedure into punishment, especially in a country where cases can drag on for years. Such disproportionate penalties violate the doctrine of proportionality; a central tenet of Article 19(2) jurisprudence affirmed in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020). A democratic state cannot punish false speech, absent incitement, with the same severity as grave bodily crimes.
III. Politicised censorship through a minister-led “authority”
A. Executive-only regulator with no safeguards
The core of the Bill is the creation of a Fake News on Social-Media Regulatory Authority (Section 5), chaired by the Minister for Kannada and Culture and comprised mainly of government nominees and industry reps, with no independent experts, civil society members, or judicial oversight. This political body is empowered to decide what constitutes truth, ban content, and recommend prosecution.
Notably absent: journalists, academics, fact-checkers, lawyers, civil society, or independent experts.
This Authority is empowered (Section 6) to:
- Ban content it deems “fake” or “anti-feminist”,
- Block posts that “disrespect Sanatan symbols and beliefs”,
- Permit only “authentic research” on “science, history, religion, philosophy, and literature”.
Nowhere does the Bill define these ideological or cultural categories. As courts have long held, laws restricting speech must be viewpoint-neutral. But here, the Authority becomes a cultural gatekeeper, with the power to censor satire, dissent, and critique based on subjective moral and political filters.
B. Echoes of the Kunal Kamra case
This mirrors the controversial Union Government’s “Fact Checking Unit” (FCU) challenged in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India, where the Bombay High Court had held that empowering an executive body to define truth undermines Article 19(1)(a) and violates principles of neutrality and procedural fairness, and stated that the government cannot be the judge of its own cause when the disputed speech criticises it.
IV. Sanatan Symbols and Anti-Feminism: Ideology masquerading as law
Section 6(b)–(e) mandates banning content that:
- Is “anti-feminist”,
- “Insults female dignity”,
- “Disrespects Sanatan symbols and beliefs”,
- “Promotes superstition”.
These phrases are neither defined nor legally established. For instance, what qualifies as anti-feminist? A critique of gender roles in mythology? A conservative view on family structure?
Similarly, “Sanatan symbols” is a term laden with majoritarian political weight, which is increasingly being invoked to assert Hindu nationalist identity, not just traditional values. By criminalising “disrespect” of such vague and religiously charged symbols, the Bill directly shields majoritarian ideology from critique, violating the secular and pluralist framework of the Constitution.
V. Lack of due process, oversight, and appeal
A. No notice, no hearing, no remedy
The Bill does not require the Authority to notify or hear the accused before blocking content. There is no requirement for transparency, publishing reasons, or independent appeal. Section 13 empowers Special Courts to issue Correction or Disabling Directions to publishers and platforms based on FIRs. But neither the Authority nor the Court is required to:
- Issue a notice to the accused content creator,
- Hold a hearing before takedown,
- Publish orders or provide reasoned justification.
Only after the order is issued can an aggrieved person approach the same court for variation or cancellation (Section 13(3)), with a final appeal to the High Court under tight timelines (Section 13(4)). Even the appeals mechanism is narrow: only final orders can be appealed to the High Court within 60 days, placing heavy procedural burdens on social media users and journalists to challenge wrongful censorship.
The authority essentially operates in secrecy, and the Special Court’s role is post-facto and limited. This violates every principle of natural justice and prior notice, cornerstones of procedural fairness affirmed repeatedly by Indian courts.
VI. Threat to platforms and safe harbour protections
Section 15 extends liability to companies, intermediaries, and publishers. Their officers may face prosecution unless they can prove they lacked knowledge or took due diligence steps—creating reverse burden of proof.
This undermines the safe harbour principle under Section 79 of the IT Act, where intermediaries are not liable for user-generated content if they act on lawful takedown notices. Here, the spectre of criminal liability will force platforms to over-censor content—resulting in private censorship of public speech. Satirical posts, dissent, or unpopular political views may be purged in fear of triggering the law, thereby silencing democratic debate.
VII. “Good Faith” as a shield for abuse
Section 20 of the Karnataka Fake News Bill provides blanket immunity to the State Government, local authorities, and any government officer for “anything done in good faith” under the Act or its rules and orders. On the face of it, such a clause is standard in many laws. But in the context of this vague, punitive, and executive-driven framework, it becomes a shield for arbitrary and unconstitutional action, with zero accountability.
VIII. What the global standard looks like
Unlike Karnataka’s criminalised model, democratic countries pursue platform accountability and structural transparency, not punitive censorship:
- EU’s Digital Services Act (2024): No criminalisation of misinformation. Platforms must assess and mitigate risks, adjust algorithms, and comply with independent Trusted Flaggers.
- France’s Anti-Disinformation Law (2018): Limited to election periods; takedown orders must come from courts, not executive bodies.
By contrast, the Karnataka Bill places criminal liability on individuals, includes ideological filters, and offers unchecked power to executive actors. No major democracy allows a Minister to declare content fake and imprison users. The Karnataka Bill is dangerously out of step.
Conclusion: Scrap this bill, start over
India does face a disinformation crisis. But the response must not be to turn the state into an arbiter of truth with the power to imprison dissenters. Karnataka’s Misinformation and Fake News Bill, 2025 is not a regulatory framework. It is a blueprint for censorship, criminalisation of dissent, and ideological control of speech. It violates:
- Article 19(1)(a): Free speech and expression
- Article 14: Equality before law
- Article 21: Due process and personal liberty
The Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, as it stands, is an overbroad, punitive, and ideologically skewed instrument that undermines both democracy and digital rights. If enacted, it will severely chill journalism, satire, dissent, research, and digital activism. The right to speak will survive in name, but be rationed in practice.
The complete bill may be accessed below.
Related:
Dissent Note: The alarming scope of Maharashtra’s Special Public Safety Bill, 2024
ECI: Moving from transparency to opacity, the decision to ‘destroy’ CCTV footage after 45 days
Court Acts on Misinformation: FIR against channels for wrongly branding teacher a terrorist