Karnataka Retools Controversial Misinformation Bill, Softening Stance and Dropping “Fake News” Label
BENGALURU – The Karnataka state government, led by the Congress party, appears to be recalibrating its approach to combating online misinformation. A revised draft of the proposed legislation, now termed the Karnataka Misinformation Regulation Bill, 2025, has emerged, significantly altering the original version that drew considerable criticism for its broad scope and potentially chilling effect on free speech. The contentious “fake news” terminology has been removed from the title, signaling a possible shift in the government’s strategy. The revised draft is anticipated to be a key topic of discussion at the upcoming cabinet meeting and subsequently tabled during the legislative session commencing on August 11.
The initial draft, introduced on June 19, aimed to curb the spread of misinformation and “fake news,” proposing stringent penalties for violations. Content creators found guilty of disseminating false information faced a potential seven-year prison sentence and a fine of up to ₹10 lakh, or both. This heavy-handed approach drew sharp rebuke from free speech advocates and legal experts who warned of its potential misuse and the stifling of legitimate online discourse. The revised draft, however, omits specific penalties, suggesting a move towards a more nuanced approach. Furthermore, clauses pertaining to the prohibition of anti-feminist content and disrespect towards “Sanatan symbols” have been removed, further narrowing the bill’s scope.
A key change lies in the definition of “communication.” The original draft considered dissemination to “one or more persons” as sufficient for prosecution, potentially criminalizing even private conversations. The new draft raises this threshold significantly, defining communication as the dissemination of information to “ten or more persons,” encompassing various mediums such as publications, electronic devices, computer resources, television broadcasts, and the creation of bots designed to spread misinformation. This revision arguably targets wider dissemination and organized campaigns rather than individual expressions.
The revised draft also clarifies the territorial jurisdiction of the law. It stipulates that individuals, regardless of their location, cannot abet the spread of misinformation within Karnataka if it disrupts public tranquility, interferes with the conduct of free and fair elections, or incites others to commit offenses. This provision addresses concerns about the law’s potential overreach beyond state borders.
The definition of “misinformation” itself has undergone refinement. The new draft defines it as “knowingly or recklessly making a false or inaccurate statement in the context in which it appears.” Crucially, it explicitly excludes opinions, religious or philosophical sermons, satire, comedy, parody, and other forms of artistic expression. This exclusion aims to protect legitimate forms of expression and prevent the law from being used to suppress dissent or creative endeavors.
The evolution of the Karnataka Misinformation Regulation Bill reflects the ongoing debate surrounding the regulation of online content. While acknowledging the need to address the spread of harmful misinformation, the government appears to be grappling with the complexities of crafting legislation that effectively combats falsehoods without unduly encroaching on fundamental rights. The removal of the “fake news” label, the softening of penalties, the clarification of jurisdictional limits, and the explicit protection of various forms of expression indicate a conscious effort to strike a more balanced approach. However, the revised draft still requires careful scrutiny to ensure it does not inadvertently stifle legitimate online discourse or provide avenues for misuse. The upcoming cabinet discussions and legislative session will be crucial in determining the final shape of the bill and its potential impact on the online landscape in Karnataka. The debate surrounding this legislation highlights the broader challenges faced by governments worldwide in navigating the complex intersection of technology, free speech, and the fight against misinformation.
