The Indian government has defended its decision to set up a fact-checking unit to combat fake news, citing concerns about the spread of misinformation and its impact on public safety. The government’s response came in the form of an affidavit filed in the Delhi High Court in response to a petition filed by comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the unit’s constitutionality.
The government’s affidavit stated that the fact-checking unit was necessary to address the “grave menace” of fake news and misinformation, which can lead to public disorder and harm national security. The affidavit also argued that the unit would operate within the bounds of the law and respect the principles of free speech and press freedom.
The government further alleged that Kamra’s petition was “malafide” and motivated by political bias, rather than a genuine concern for the protection of constitutional rights. The government’s response also argued that Kamra did not have the legal standing to challenge the fact-checking unit’s constitutionality, as he had not suffered any personal harm as a result of the unit’s activities.
Kamra’s petition had argued that the fact-checking unit was unconstitutional because it had not been established by a law passed by Parliament, and because it could potentially be used to stifle free speech and dissent. The comedian had also alleged that the unit was politically motivated, citing its inclusion of members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological affiliates.
The Delhi High Court has yet to rule on Kamra’s petition, and the case is still ongoing. The court’s decision could have significant implications for the government’s efforts to combat fake news and misinformation, as well as for the protection of free speech and press freedom in India.
Concerns over the unit’s operations: Kamra’s petition raised concerns about the fact-checking unit’s operations, including its lack of transparency, the potential for political bias, and the possibility of censorship. The comedian also argued that the unit had not been established through proper legal channels, as it had not been established by a law passed by Parliament.
Response from the government: In its affidavit, the government argued that the fact-checking unit was necessary to combat the spread of fake news and misinformation, which can have serious consequences for public safety and national security. The government also stated that the unit would operate within the bounds of the law and respect the principles of free speech and press freedom.