Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Navroz Seervai, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Darius Khambata, Sr. Adv., with Arti Raghavan, Vrinda Bhandari, Gayatri Malhotra, Abhinav Sekhri & Tanmay Singh, i/b Meenaz Kakalia, Mr. Shadan Farasat with Hrishika Jha & Natasha Maheshwari, i/b Bimal Rajsekhar, Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. with Nisha Bhambani, Rahul Unnikrishnan & Bharat Manghani, i/b Gautam Jain, Mr. Gautam Bhatia with Radhika Roy, i/b Aditi Saxena.
For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General & Mr Devang Vyas, Add. Solicitor General With Rajat Nair, Gaurang Bhushan, Aman Mehta, D.P. Singh, Savita Ganoo, Anush Amin, Vaishnavi, Bhuvnesh Kumar, Addl Secretary, Vikram Sahay, Director & Ritesh Kumar Sahu, Scientist D.

The legal judgment thoroughly examines the constitutionality of the 2023 amendment to the rules governing online content regulation. The Court finds that the amendment violates fundamental rights, particularly the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), and infringes on other rights such as the right to carry on a profession under Article 19(1)(g). The core concern is that the amendment grants the government unilateral authority to determine what constitutes fake, false, or misleading content relating to the "business of the Central Government," without clear guidelines or procedural safeguards (!) (!) (!) .

The Court highlights that the terms "fake," "false," or "misleading" are inherently vague and overbroad, risking arbitrary censorship and a chilling effect on free expression (!) (!) (!) . The absence of precise definitions, procedural safeguards, and transparent guidelines creates a risk of misuse, leading to potential suppression of dissent, satire, and critical commentary, which are vital components of a democratic marketplace of ideas (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the amendment improperly shifts the responsibility of content verification from the creator or originator to intermediaries, who are not in control of the content and rely on vague and subjective determinations by the government’s FCU. This shift results in de facto censorship, as intermediaries are compelled to remove content identified by the FCU as fake, without any opportunity for the content creator or user to defend or contest such identification (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The Court also notes that the classification of content related to the "business of the Central Government" as a special class that warrants different treatment is unjustified and constitutes invidious discrimination, violating the principle of rational classification under constitutional law (!) (!) (!) . The lack of clear, objective standards for determining what content falls within this category further exacerbates the overbreadth and vagueness issues.

In addition, the Court finds that the procedures for redress and appeal are inadequate, as the rules do not provide for fair hearing or disclosure of the material relied upon by the FCU, violating principles of natural justice (!) (!) (!) . The absence of safeguards against bias and the subjective nature of content identification undermine the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of fair process.

The Court concludes that the amendment exceeds the powers granted under the parent statute, the IT Act, and is thus ultra vires. It also fails the constitutional tests of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality, and cannot be justified as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) (!) (!) (!) .

Accordingly, the Court strikes down the 2023 amendment in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional and void ab initio (!) (!) . The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding free speech, natural justice, and the principle that restrictions on fundamental rights must be clear, narrowly tailored, and subject to judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary censorship and preserve democratic discourse.