Karnataka Proposes Landmark Legislation to Combat Digital Misinformation and Hate Speech
Bengaluru, India – The Karnataka government is preparing to introduce two significant bills aimed at curbing the spread of misinformation and hate speech in the digital realm: the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News Prohibition Bill, 2025, and the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crime Prevention Bill, 2025. These legislative proposals reflect the state’s growing apprehension regarding the unchecked proliferation of false and inflammatory content online, particularly on social media platforms.
The Misinformation and Fake News Prohibition Bill proposes a robust framework for penalizing individuals and organizations involved in the dissemination of fake news. Individuals found guilty could face imprisonment of up to seven years and fines reaching ₹10 lakh, or both. Companies found complicit could see their responsible officers prosecuted unless they can demonstrate a lack of awareness or the implementation of reasonable preventative measures. This bill aims to hold both individuals and platforms accountable for the spread of false information.
A central feature of the bill is the establishment of a Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority. This body, proposed to be headed by the Minister for Kannada and Culture, will comprise state legislators, senior government officials, and representatives from social media companies. The Authority will be tasked with enforcing bans on fake news and regulating content deemed obscene, anti-feminist, or disrespectful to Sanatan beliefs. This broad mandate raises concerns about potential overreach and censorship of legitimate expression.
The bill defines fake news as fabricated or misleading content, including manipulated audio-visual clips, misquotes, and knowingly false statements. However, it carves out exceptions for satire, parody, religious or philosophical beliefs, and artistic expression. To further combat misinformation, content related to science, religion, philosophy, history, and literature must cite authentic sources, potentially adding a layer of verification and accountability to online discourse.
Non-compliance with takedown orders will result in substantial penalties, including fines of ₹25,000 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25 lakh, and potential imprisonment of up to two years. Furthermore, the draft bill proposes establishing special courts, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, to adjudicate offences under the Act. These courts will possess the authority to mandate content corrections and impose access restrictions, further strengthening the enforcement mechanisms of the bill.
Offences under this bill are categorized as cognisable and non-bailable. Granting bail will require input from a special public prosecutor and judicial assurance that the accused is unlikely to reoffend. The stringent nature of these provisions reflects the seriousness with which the Karnataka government views the issue of digital misinformation. A study by MIT’s Media Lab, cited in the bill, underscores the rapid spread of fake news compared to verified information, highlighting the urgency of addressing this issue. The bill’s accompanying statement of objects emphasizes the growing threat of digital misinformation and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Officials argue that new legislation is essential to protect public safety, social harmony, and order in an increasingly digital world, especially in the context of viral content spreading rapidly through platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter).
The proposed legislation is expected to generate significant discussion among various stakeholders, including digital rights advocates, industry players, and legal experts. Concerns have been raised about the potential impact on freedom of expression and the potential for misuse of the broad powers granted to the regulatory authority. Critics argue that the bill’s definition of "fake news" is too broad and could be used to suppress legitimate dissent or criticism. Furthermore, the inclusion of "anti-feminist" content as a category for regulation raises concerns about the potential for subjective interpretation and censorship of feminist viewpoints.
The establishment of a dedicated regulatory authority also raises questions about its independence and impartiality. The inclusion of government officials and legislators on the authority may lead to concerns about political influence and bias in content moderation decisions. Additionally, the broad powers granted to the authority to regulate content related to sensitive topics like religion and philosophy could lead to accusations of censorship and restrictions on freedom of thought and expression.
The proposed penalties for non-compliance with takedown orders are also seen as excessively harsh by some critics. The daily fines of ₹25,000, coupled with the possibility of imprisonment, could have a chilling effect on online speech and discourage individuals and platforms from hosting controversial or critical content. This could disproportionately impact smaller platforms and independent content creators who may not have the resources to comply with the stringent regulations.
The requirement for citing sources for content related to science, religion, philosophy, history, and literature, while intended to combat misinformation, also raises practical challenges. It may be difficult to enforce effectively and could lead to arbitrary decisions about what constitutes an "authentic" source. Moreover, it could stifle creativity and discourage individuals from expressing opinions or interpretations that deviate from established narratives.
The Karnataka government’s initiative to combat digital misinformation and hate speech is commendable, given the demonstrable harm caused by the proliferation of false and inflammatory content online. However, the proposed legislation requires careful consideration to ensure that it strikes a balance between addressing the harms of misinformation and protecting fundamental rights, especially the right to freedom of expression. It is crucial to engage in a broader public consultation process involving all stakeholders to refine the bill and ensure that it is proportionate, effective, and respects constitutional guarantees. The bill’s success will ultimately depend on its implementation and the ability of the regulatory authority to act fairly and transparently.