India’s Proposed “Fake News” Law: A Dangerous Path to Censorship
The draft of Karnataka’s Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025 has ignited a firestorm of debate in India, raising serious concerns about freedom of expression and the potential for government overreach in the digital age. While the bill purports to address the growing problem of online disinformation, critics argue that its vague definitions, harsh penalties, and lack of independent oversight create a dangerous pathway to censorship and the suppression of dissent.
The bill defines “fake news” broadly, encompassing misquotes, edited clips, and fabrications, potentially including AI-generated content. An even broader category of “misinformation” criminalizes partially inaccurate statements made “knowingly or recklessly,” even if satire, opinion, or artistic expression are ostensibly excluded. This subjectivity creates a chilling effect, as individuals and media outlets may self-censor to avoid potential prosecution. The penalties are steep: a minimum of two years and up to five years in prison for misinformation, plus fines. These are harsher than many existing provisions for defamation or incitement.
The proposed “Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority,” tasked with enforcing the law, is composed entirely of government appointees and legislators, excluding experts, fact-checkers, lawyers, and civil society representatives. This raises concerns about potential bias and the selective targeting of dissenting voices. Empowering the government to label posts as false, order takedowns, and block accounts without independent oversight grants unchecked authority to those in power to decide what constitutes truth. This structure directly contradicts recent court rulings emphasizing the need for checks on executive power to protect free expression.
The bill’s scope extends beyond fake news to encompass content deemed “anti-feminist,” obscene, unscientific, or disrespectful of “Sanatan” symbols. This last category is particularly problematic, as the term “Sanatan,” while traditionally referring to core Hindu values, is increasingly used by right-wing groups to promote Hindu nationalist ideologies. The bill’s lack of clarity on what constitutes a “Sanatan symbol” leaves the door open for arbitrary interpretation and the suppression of legitimate criticism or satire. This blurring of lines between religious belief and majoritarian assertion poses a significant threat to free expression.
Further exacerbating concerns is the bill’s reversal of the presumption of innocence. Securing bail requires convincing a judge of the accused’s innocence if the Special Public Prosecutor opposes it. This provision makes prolonged pre-trial detention likely, turning the legal process itself into a form of punishment. The potential for legal harassment and reputational damage, even before guilt is proven, further discourages open discourse.
While proponents of the bill may point to European disinformation regulations as justification, these models differ significantly in both design and oversight. France’s Law Against the Manipulation of Information focuses on deliberate disinformation during elections and relies on courts, not political appointees, to order takedowns. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) takes a structural approach, avoiding criminalization altogether. Instead, it requires platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks from disinformation, promoting accountability through transparency and systemic reform, rather than policing individual speech. Crucially, neither framework criminalizes contested speech nor grants governments unchecked power over truth.
India’s existing climate of self-censorship, particularly in BJP-ruled states, amplifies the potential dangers of this legislation. If enacted, the Karnataka bill risks joining a growing list of jurisdictions where the right to speak exists in theory but is severely restricted in practice. While the disinformation crisis in India is undeniable, and platforms have often failed to address it effectively, criminalizing questionable posts and granting sweeping censorship powers to politicians is not the solution.
The public outcry following the release of the draft bill has prompted the Karnataka IT Minister to acknowledge the need for broader consultation. This presents a crucial opportunity to reconsider the approach. Instead of criminalization, the state should invest in independent fact-checking initiatives and impose proportionate obligations on platforms to address demonstrable harms. Any regulatory body must be politically independent, transparent, and offer clear avenues for appeal. The fight against disinformation must empower citizens, not silence them. Karnataka has a chance to protect both public safety and the fundamental right to free expression by abandoning this flawed bill and creating a model that truly strengthens democracy.
