3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Mar 10, 2026 06:34 PM IST
Underlining that the actions of social platforms can sometimes be “dangerous”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will examine the Bombay High Court judgment that struck down amendments to the Information Technology Rules allowing the Centre to establish fact check units (FCUs) to identify false news against the government on online platforms.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan said the question is of “paramount importance”. The court, which issued notice on the appeal challenging the September 26, 2024, high court order that struck down the provisions as unconstitutional, however, refused to stay it.
“No, not at this stage,” the CJI said, as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta wondered if the court would stay the high court order. The court also turned down the request to issue notice on the Centre’s application for a stay, saying, “We would like to decide the main matter at the earliest.”
The bench directed that it would be heard by a three-judge bench of the court.
Mehta said he had filed a note pointing out the various fake and false news. He added, “There is no intention either under the statute or otherwise to curb any humour, satire, expression of view, critical expression of view, criticism.”
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for standup comic Kunal Kamra, who had challenged the rules before the high court, said there is effectively a delay of 400 days in filing the appeal.
The bench, however, said it will hear it. “The question is of paramount importance and is better that Supreme Court lay down the law,” said the CJI.
Story continues below this ad
Datar said the high court judgment is detailed and only asked the Centre to frame proper rules.
The CJI said, “The issues flagged by the HC are also extremely important. So it’s only a question of how to balance the rights…without compromising the constitutional values.”
Datar said that was already settled by the court, pursuant to which the Centre had framed the rules. “They have rule-making power. All that the high court says is you frame proper rules. You can’t put it all in one notification,” he submitted.
Datar added that there were rules for blocking, too.
Mehta said, “We do not wish to block completely.”
The CJI said, “The way some of these platforms are behaving nowadays, that’s also (a matter of concern)….see the illustrations they have placed on record. You can’t damage the personal life, now they have started damaging the nation, I am not concerned any individual…”.
Story continues below this ad
Datar said the high court had said that what is misleading has not been defined.
CJI Surya Kant said, “There should be very clear guidelines, demarcation. Shifting the entire onus on the machinery without putting any obligation on those who play all this mischief is something that requires consideration”
Datar said there are very serious obligations on the intermediaries.
The CJI said, “If the high court had said the rules will remain inoperational till the guidelines are in place, it would have been different. But you strike down the rules, saying guidelines are not there.”
