Karnataka’s Proposed Misinformation Law: A Recipe for Censorship and Confusion
The Karnataka government’s proposed Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill 2025 aims to combat the spread of false information online, but its poorly defined provisions and sweeping powers raise serious concerns about freedom of expression and the potential for misuse. The bill, which proposes a parallel regime to existing central laws, seeks to criminalize the sharing of “fake news” and “misinformation,” with penalties ranging from five to seven years imprisonment. While the intention to curb the spread of harmful falsehoods is understandable, the bill’s approach is riddled with structural flaws and enforcement challenges that threaten to stifle legitimate discourse and create a chilling effect on online communication.
One of the most glaring issues is the bill’s ambiguous and overlapping definitions of “fake news” and “misinformation.” While claiming to distinguish between the two, the bill ultimately defines both as information that can influence the public through falsehoods or exaggerations. This lack of clarity opens the door to arbitrary interpretation and selective enforcement, with the potential for individuals to be penalized for unintentional errors or even trivial inaccuracies. The bill’s reliance on the nebulous term "fake news," often used by politicians to discredit unfavorable reporting, further exacerbates this concern. The vague definitions create a chilling effect, where individuals and social media platforms may engage in excessive self-censorship to avoid potential penalties. This will lead to limitation in freedom of speech and a diluted public sphere with limited information flow.
The bill’s attempt to regulate online communication within Karnataka also presents significant practical challenges. Geo-fencing online content, which involve restricting its availability based on geographical location, is notoriously difficult to enforce in the borderless world of the internet. Users can easily bypass such restrictions with tools like Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), rendering the bill’s geographical limitations ineffective. This creates a scenario where law enforcement agencies engage in a futile pursuit of anonymous users across a globally connected network. The enforcement in this regard will be very complex also because the internet is a global platform and it is often difficult to track the origin of any message.
Enforcement of the proposed law also raises significant concerns. The broad definition of "communication" could potentially encompass even in-person conversations, vastly expanding the scope of the law beyond its intended purpose. The bill also fails to address situations where the recipient of a message moves into Karnataka after the communication has taken place or instances where the sender is unaware of the recipient’s location. These ambiguities create a climate of uncertainty and make compliance practically impossible for individuals. It is also near impossible for a platform to know the location of every user and to keep updated information for migratory users and their location information. It is therefore an impractical and redundant bill.
The bill establishes a six-member social media regulatory authority to oversee the implementation of the law. However, the authority’s powers are ill-defined and raise questions about its effectiveness. While the authority is empowered to initiate punitive action under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the bill’s definition of “fake news” does not correspond to any specific offense under the BNS. Furthermore, the authority’s jurisdiction is limited to “fake news,” excluding “misinformation,” despite the significant overlap between the two concepts. This creates a confusing and potentially contradictory enforcement framework.
The bill also grants the regulatory authority sweeping powers to monitor and preemptively block content deemed disrespectful to Sanatan Dharma, superstitious, or unscientific. Such subjective criteria are open to abuse and could lead to censorship of legitimate expression. It places an undue burden on a small six-member body to police a vast amount of online content, raising concerns about feasibility and potential biases. Additionally, the bill’s vague language and undefined terms further complicate compliance and enforcement efforts.
In conclusion, the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill 2025 represents a deeply flawed attempt to address the complex issue of online misinformation. Its ambiguous definitions, impractical enforcement mechanisms, and sweeping powers create a chilling effect on free speech and open the door to potential misuse and censorship. The bill’s structural infirmities and enforcement challenges underscore the need for a more nuanced and carefully considered approach to regulating online content that balances the need to combat misinformation with the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The bill’s current form threatens to stifle legitimate discourse and create a climate of fear and self-censorship, ultimately undermining the very principles it seeks to protect.