Combating Misinformation: Challenges, Legal Framework, and Case Laws in India
Misinformation, by its basic definition, is incorrect or misleading information that may or may not be shared with malicious intent. It encompasses inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information, as well as selective or half-truths. The rise of digital platforms has amplified the speed and scope of misinformation dissemination, presenting significant challenges in combating its effects. Defining misinformation and distinguishing it from legitimate content is an intricate task, complicated by the need to balance the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression with the necessity of state regulation to curb harmful content. This balance is essential to prevent censorship while addressing the severe consequences of misinformation.
Legal Challenges of Misinformation in India
The legal framework for combating misinformation has been evolving in India. Earlier, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addressed related offences like defamation, sedition, and promoting enmity among different groups, but it lacked comprehensive provisions to address misinformation directly. Acknowledging this gap, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, introduced targeted measures to penalize the deliberate creation, distribution, or publication of false information. These provisions aim to strengthen India’s ability to counter misinformation while safeguarding public order, national security, and social harmony.
Key Provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
1. Section 353: Statements Conducing to Public Mischief
This section criminalizes the making, publishing, or circulating of false information, rumours, or reports, including through electronic means, with the intent or likelihood of causing:
• Public alarm or fear,
• Offences against the State,
• Disturbance of public tranquillity, or
• Incitement of enmity or ill will among various groups based on religion, race, language, or region.
The section prescribes:
• Imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both, and
• Imprisonment of up to five years and a fine if the offence occurs in places of worship or during religious ceremonies.
The only exception applies to individuals who unwittingly share misinformation, believing it to be true. However, this safeguard may not sufficiently deter misinformation due to challenges in tracing its source and verifying intent.
2. Section 197(1)(d): Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration
Under this provision, anyone who disseminates false or misleading information that endangers the sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security of India can face:
• Imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both, or
• Imprisonment for up to five years and a fine if the offence occurs in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies.
3. Section 212(a) & (b): Furnishing False Information
This section penalizes individuals who knowingly furnish false information to public servants:
• Imprisonment for six months, a fine of up to ₹5,000, or both for general false information, and
• Imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both if the false information relates to the commission or prevention of an offence or the apprehension of an offender.
Judicial Perspective and Case Laws
The judiciary in India has played a crucial role in addressing misinformation. Courts have emphasized the need to balance free speech with public order and national security. Below are some landmark cases: 1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized offensive or annoying online speech, as unconstitutional. The judgment highlighted the importance of protecting freedom of speech while cautioning against overreach in curbing misinformation. 2. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014)
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed hate speech and observed that existing laws like Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC could handle inflammatory statements. The judgment indirectly emphasized the need for precision in laws tackling misinformation to avoid misuse. 3. Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)
This case involved a journalist accused of making derogatory statements about a religious figure. The Supreme Court upheld the need for responsible journalism and cautioned against the spread of misinformation that could incite enmity between communities. 4. State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Togadia (2004)
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of maintaining public order and the government’s responsibility to act against inflammatory statements, which often stem from misinformation.
Global Context and Lessons for India
Countries worldwide are grappling with the menace of misinformation. For instance:
• The European Union’s Digital Services Act requires online platforms to remove illegal content, including misinformation, swiftly.
• Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) empowers authorities to issue correction or takedown orders for online falsehoods.
India can learn from such frameworks while ensuring that regulations align with constitutional safeguards and democratic principles.
Conclusion
Misinformation poses a significant threat to societal harmony, public safety, and national security. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, represents a commendable effort to address this challenge through targeted legal provisions. However, the implementation of these laws must be accompanied by:
• Public awareness campaigns to promote media literacy,
• Collaboration with social media platforms to identify and counter misinformation, and
• A robust mechanism to safeguard freedom of expression and prevent misuse of these provisions.
The judiciary’s oversight and a clear distinction between misinformation and legitimate content will be crucial in ensuring that these laws achieve their intended objectives without compromising democratic values.
