In March 2025, the Government of Karnataka introduced the draft Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, currently under cabinet review. At first glance, the Bill seems to respond to a pressing need to curb the spread of false information that distorts public opinion. However, a closer look reveals a troubling pattern. Its vague definitions, sweeping language, and disproportionate penalties raise serious constitutional and democratic concerns. Rather than establishing clear legal boundaries, the Bill creates an expansive framework that centralizes power in the hands of the executive, to the detriment of free expression.

The Bill’s definition of “fake news” is alarmingly broad. It encompasses not only objectively false information, but also content deemed “misleading,” “distorted,” or “anti-feminist” content. Moreover, it includes expressions that “disrespects Indian culture, religious beliefs, or Sanatan symbols.” Crucially, none of these categories are defined with precision. This lack of clarity invites subjective interpretation. Without clear legislative or judicial standards, these provisions give the state excessive power to determine what counts as a punishable offence.

This approach runs counter to constitutional jurisprudence. In Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, precisely because it relied on vague terms like “grossly offensive.” The Court warned that such ambiguity has a chilling effect on speech, as people will self-censor, unsure whether their words fall afoul of the law. A healthy democracy, the Court emphasized, must include space for dissent and criticism. By punishing speech on the basis of subjective ideas like “disrespect to culture,” the Karnataka Bill risks reinstating a legal standard that the Supreme Court has already invalidated.

Similarly, in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020), the Court reiterated that any restriction on fundamental rights must pass the three-pronged tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Yet many provisions in this Bill falter at the first hurdle of legality, by failing to define core concepts. Phrases such as “anti-feminist” or “disrespectful to culture” lack objective criteria, rendering them constitutionally suspect.

Beyond domestic law, the Bill also appears to fall short of India’s international obligations. By criminalising vaguely defined expression, it plainly fails the strict test of necessity and proportionality required for restricting freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR. Compare this with Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), which, though not without criticism, limits itself to targeting illegal hate speech and incitement under clearly defined legal categories. It also mandates public reporting and platform accountability. The Karnataka Bill, in contrast, introduces criminal penalties without corresponding safeguards or independent checks.

Adding to this concerning picture is that the Bill seeks to punish offenders with imprisonment of up to seven years and fines reaching ten lakhs. Such penalties are disproportionate and serve as a tool of intimidation. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has cautioned that vague criminal laws invite “partisan or selective enforcement,” reducing space for free inquiry. Under such a regime, legitimate expressions like satire, feminist critique, or scholarly study can easily be labeled as “misinformation.”

Adding to the risks, the Bill, under Section 5, proposes a “Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority.” This body, entirely controlled by the executive, would wield censorship powers and levy penalties, with no independent oversight or mechanism for judicial review. This directly undermines the principle of separation of powers and erodes the rule of law. It is important to remember that India already possesses legal tools to deal with defamation, obscenity, and incitement. Even the controversial Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, for all their flaws, provide tiered grievance redressal mechanisms, due diligence obligations, and content takedown protocols for online platforms. Instead of building on or reforming these existing frameworks, the Karnataka Bill introduces an entirely new regime of criminal regulation which relies on vague standards and unchecked executive control. In doing so, it risks establishing a precedent where subjective cultural and ideological boundaries are policed through criminal law.

If enacted, the Bill could fundamentally alter the landscape of online speech in India. A better alternative would be to replace vague criminal penalties with narrow civil remedies for proven harmful content. Equally vital is the need for independent institutional oversight and procedural safeguards that protect citizens from arbitrary censorship. Ultimately, safeguarding the public sphere from misinformation should not come at the cost of silencing dissent. A democracy thrives not on conformity, but on critical dialogue and the freedom to question prevailing norms.