Karnataka Goes All Out To Curb Fake News, But At What Cost?

In a country where over 600 Mn people actively use WhatsApp and around 240 Mn use Facebook, social media has become a potent weapon, thanks to the speed at which information spreads across platforms, unchecked, unfiltered, and often unverified. Without a doubt, social media has opened the floodgates of misinformation, so much so that it has now become impossible to tell what’s fake and what’s not.   

Not to mention, such acts can polarise communities, amplify social tensions, spread fear, fuel hatred, weaken societal trust and shake the foundations of democracy. Isn’t this what the miscreants want — to bring chaos to the order?

To curb the rise of misinformation, the Government of Karnataka has introduced the Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025. 

The 11-page draft bill proposes criminal penalties of up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to INR 10 Lakh for those found guilty of spreading misinformation via digital media.

The bill, if passed, would give the state the authority to take action if found guilty of spreading “fake news” or “anti-women content”, promoting “superstition”, or insulting “Sanatan symbols”.

Despite the intent being in the right place, the bill’s vague language and sweeping powers have raised serious concerns about potential misuse, censorship, and infringement on free speech. While it proposes strict actions against persons involved in the dissemination of questionable content, it puts tech giants and startups in a precarious position by holding them and their leadership liable for user-generated content on their platforms.

Now, before we dive deeper into addressing some of these concerns, let’s steal a glance at the existing frameworks governing Karnataka. 

Under the current regime, IT Rules 2021 and their 2022 amendments hold platforms accountable but do not directly criminalise misinformation. 

Provisions under IPC Sections 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot) and 295 (defiling a place of worship with the intent to insult the religion of any class of persons) are applicable mainly in cases involving hate speech or communal tensions. Defamation laws exist, but are civil in nature and slow-moving.

This legislative lacuna is what the Karnataka government aims to fill. With the misinformation bill, the state seeks to maintain “social decency” and “Indian cultural values” on the internet.

However, many stakeholders fear that terms as open-ended as “Indian cultural values” are very subjective and open to interpretation. This could pave the way for selective enforcement, allowing authorities to target content based on political or ideological bias.

Sweeping Powers, Ambiguity Raise Frowns

According to the Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, anyone found guilty of publishing or sharing misinformation that affects public health, safety, peace, or the fairness of elections could face a minimum of two years in prison, which can go up to five years, along with a fine. If the content originates outside Karnataka but reaches its citizens, the state can still act. 

Even those who aid and abet such offences by sharing, forwarding, or facilitating dissemination would be fined and could see a jail term of two years or more.

One of the most ambitious aspects of the draft bill is its clause, calling for a total ban on social media fake news. To regulate this, the bill proposes to set up a new state-level body — the Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority, which would be responsible for monitoring, imposing, and enforcing compliance.

The authority will be headed by the minister of Kannada and culture (ex-officio), with members from both houses of Karnataka’s bicameral legislature, two social media company representatives nominated by the government, and an IAS officer as its secretary. 

The regulatory body, which will be administratively backed by the state’s Department of Information and Public Relations, is expected to sit at least twice a month.

However, the functions of the authority go beyond countering misinformation. It will have the power to ban any content found to be abusive, obscene, anti-feminist, or insulting to Sanatan symbols and beliefs. 

It will be tasked with ensuring that posts related to science, history, religion, philosophy, and literature are authentic research. The authority will also see to it that offenders are punished under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

“The bill is a profound change in how the state seeks to control the internet. Although its publicly expressed purpose is to protect citizens and state institutions from harm, its sweeping scope, ambiguous terms, and discretionary authority are questionable,” said a social media influencer and a political satirist.

The bill proposes to criminalise the generation and sharing of misinformation on various digital platforms. Persons convicted of spreading false information can be imprisoned for two to five years, with a more severe punishment of seven years and a penalty of INR 10 Lakh for persons posting such information on social media websites.

The bill also provides for a penalty for abetment and the possibility of up to two years of imprisonment even for helping or facilitating the propagation of misinformation.

Under the proposal, social media platforms and intermediaries also face scrutiny. They may be required to take down flagged content, cooperate with authorities, or face penalties for non-compliance.

Why Karnataka’s Fake News Bill Is Raising Alarms

There are concerns about the bill’s vague and undefined terms. Phrases like “anti-feminist content” and “insults to Sanatan symbols” have no clear meaning in Indian law as they are open to interpretation.

Content the state deems “anti-feminist” or disrespectful of “Sanatan symbols” can be removed from the internet under the proposed bill, but neither of the terms is defined in the existing law, Apar Gupta, the director of Internet Freedom Foundation, writes in a blog. 

He also raised the questions of what qualifies as anti-feminist and which symbols are considered Sanatan. These vague and subjective phrases extend well beyond the reasonable restrictions allowed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, Gupta said.

Legal experts warned that such ambiguous phrasing could have real-world consequences on content creators, journalists, researchers, and everyday users. 

They are of the view that without clear definitions, even legitimate criticism, satire or academic debate could be labelled “anti-feminist” or an “insult” to religious traditions. This opens the door to selective enforcement based on political or ideological preferences. 

A Delhi-based lawyer pointed out that laws which fail the test of clarity are more likely to be struck down by courts, especially when they infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

What makes the issue more pressing is the state’s intent to empower a government-appointed authority to police such content, he added. This raises fears of institutional bias and a lack of independent oversight. 

The Software Freedom Law Center, a donor-supported legal services organisation, has also raised grave concerns over the draft bill, particularly its potential to infringe the freedom of expression. 

The organisation has flagged punishments under the bill as excessive and concerning in the context of a democratic society. Phrases like “knowingly or recklessly making a statement of fact” and references to “misquotation, false or inaccurate reporting” are so broad that they open the door to legal overreach and misuse.

A Regulatory Albatross Around The Corporate Neck?

While much of the public discourse surrounding Karnataka’s draft Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, is centred on its impact on free speech, the bill also threatens to disrupt the long-standing “safe harbour” provisions that social media companies and digital platforms enjoy, without being directly liable for user-generated content (UGC).

Currently, platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, and X operate under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which offers them immunity from liability for third-party content, provided they act on takedown requests and comply with due diligence norms prescribed under the amended IT Rules.

As per Section 15 of the Karnataka draft, if a company is found in violation, “every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business” will also be considered guilty. 

This extends liability beyond the corporate entity to individuals in leadership positions — CEOs, directors, managers, and even secretaries. They may face prosecution and penalties unless they can prove the violation occurred without their knowledge or despite due diligence.

It suggests shared liability for the platforms that host such content, signalling a shift away from intermediary protection to platform responsibility, leagal experts pointed out.

“It is also concerning that the Karnataka Fake News Bill, 2025, extends liability not only to individual speakers but also to intermediaries and publishers. Companies and their officers can be held responsible… unless they prove due diligence or lack of knowledge. This erodes the ‘“safe harbour’” principle (enshrined in India’s IT Act),” Internet Freedom Foundation’s Gupta wrote in a blog.

He added that the consequence of this will be the overzealous removal of user content by intermediaries to avoid liability. This is where private companies may end up over-censoring content to avoid potential legal consequences, ultimately strangling the right to freedom of speech and expression.

For big techs and digital startups, the Karnataka bill presents a troubling precedent. It sets the stage for state-by-state digital regulation, which could result in conflicting rules and fragmented compliance requirements across India. “Today it’s Karnataka… tomorrow it could be five other states drafting their own versions of content control laws,” a lawyer said.

Is The Government Taking Note?

As the Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, is in the early stages of being drafted, Karnataka IT minister Priyank Kharge has assured that the departments of law, home, and IT will engage in detailed consultations before tabling the bill. 

The minister’s comments came amid a rising backlash from legal experts, media professionals, and digital rights organisations. They’ve raised concerns about the bill’s vague wording and the risk of it being misused.

Taking to X (formerly Twitter), Kharge said that “many friends from the media have been seeking clarifications” and added that “a lot of misinformation is circulating around the proposed bill.” 

While the intent, he implied, is to curb the growing menace of harmful fake news, critics argue that vague definitions and disproportionate penalties could do more harm than good, especially in a digital-first economy like Karnataka’s.

For now, the government appears to be in the listening mode, but pressure is mounting. Founders, technologists, and free speech advocates are calling for greater transparency, narrower definitions, and judicial oversight to ensure the legislation doesn’t become a blunt instrument of censorship. 

[Edited by Shishir Parasher]