Karnataka's Proposed Disinformation Bill Sparks Fierce Constitutional and Practical Debate

Bengaluru, India – The Karnataka government's plan to introduce a new Bill to combat online disinformation has ignited a critical debate among legal experts, pitting the state's stated goal of curbing "fake news" against fundamental principles of free speech and the practical realities of online content moderation. The proposed legislation, which could be tabled as early as the upcoming winter session of the Assembly, seeks to "name and shame" purveyors of falsehoods and regulate the digital platforms that amplify their content.

The announcement was made by Karnataka's Minister for IT/BT, Priyank Kharge, at a policy dialogue titled "Truth, Trust & Technology," co-hosted by the prestigious National Law School of India University (NLSIU) and technology law firm Ikigai Law. While the government insists the Bill will not impinge on legitimate expression, a panel of legal scholars and practitioners at the event raised profound concerns about its constitutional validity, potential for misuse, and the dangerous precedent of the state appointing itself the "arbiter of truth."

The Government's Rationale: A Digital Scourge Minister Kharge framed the proposed law as a necessary response to the escalating threat of intentionally corrosive disinformation, a problem he argued is "magnified by technology."

“This threat is magnified by technology, especially now, with the advent of accessible and affordable AI tools. Anyone can now create deepfake videos, clone voices, and fabricate documents that appear entirely authentic,” Kharge stated. He emphasized the potential for a "single click to spark chaos" and outlined the Bill's dual focus: targeting individuals who create and spread disinformation, and holding platforms accountable.

“We want to also regulate the platforms that amplify such disinformation, thereby violating their own public policies. By allowing such information to be amplified on their platform, they are also indirectly responsible,” the Minister added, acknowledging the difficulty of constant monitoring but stressing the need to bring platforms "under one umbrella" with the laws of the land.

Kharge was quick to offer assurances that the government has "no intention of curbing free speech, creativity, satire and opinions." However, for many legal professionals, this assurance falls short when weighed against the inherent ambiguities and risks of regulating speech.

A Constitutional Tug of War The core of the legal opposition to the proposed Bill lies in its potential conflict with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Legal experts at the dialogue highlighted that any restriction on this right must satisfy the stringent tests laid down in Article 19(2) and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

Panelists argued that for any regulation of speech to be constitutionally sound, it must be based on one of the specific grounds listed in Article 19(2) (such as security of the state, public order, or defamation), and must pass the judicial tests of proportionality, necessity, and the use of the "least-restrictive means."

Manu Kulkarni, Partner at Poovayya & Co, pointed to a fundamental flaw in the government's approach. “The biggest problem with the present approach as I see it, is that the elephant in the room is that the government wants to be the arbiter of truth. That’s a little difficult to digest,” he said. Kulkarni drew a parallel with the central government's attempt to establish a fact-check unit, a move that was challenged and stayed by the Bombay High Court, underscoring judicial skepticism towards executive overreach in defining truth.

He argued that new laws are ineffective when existing ones are poorly enforced. "Information that is harmful and that has resulted in chaos is never truly prosecuted," Kulkarni noted, suggesting that the focus should be on enforcing existing laws against content that causes "actual harm," rather than creating broad new regulations that could "strike at the root of democracy."

The Perils of Criminalisation and Executive Power A major point of contention is the Bill's apparent reliance on a criminal law framework. Alok Kumar Prasanna, Co-Founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, delivered a sharp critique of this approach, calling it the "easy solution but the wrong solution."

“Criminal action in India starts with an arrest and ends with bail. There’s no focus on convictions... This concentrates power at the executive and the police, which is the source of the problem,” Prasanna explained. He argued that such laws empower the state to harass dissenters, journalists, and critics without needing to secure a conviction.

Dhanya Rajendran, Co-Founder of The News Minute, echoed this concern, citing the current Karnataka government's own track record. “Look at what Karnataka did after the Congress government came to power. They’ve booked three national anchors... if the new law is passed, then when an anchor says something against the government, they can immediately file a case saying the journalist is promoting enmity,” she warned. Rajendran predicted that journalists, YouTubers, and social media users would inevitably "bear the brunt" of such a law, regardless of the political party in power.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Vice-Chancellor of NLSIU, suggested a move away from a purely criminal-law focus, advocating for a framework that introduces liability at both the individual and platform levels, potentially through a civil or regulatory mechanism rather than immediate criminalisation.

The AI Paradox: A Threat and a Separate Legal Frontier The government's concern over AI-generated disinformation, such as deepfakes, is not unfounded. This emerging technological challenge is already being litigated in Indian courts, albeit in a different context. In a recent, high-profile case, the Delhi High Court granted an injunction to protect the "personality rights" of veteran actor and politician Jaya Bachchan.

The court ordered the takedown of unauthorised AI-generated videos and other content misusing her likeness. This case, following similar orders protecting other members of the Bachchan family, demonstrates a growing judicial recognition of an individual's right to control their own name, voice, and persona. While the Bachchan case deals with commercial misappropriation and personality rights rather than public disinformation, it highlights the courts' willingness to intervene against the misuse of new technologies.

This parallel development raises a key question for the Karnataka government: can the specific harms of AI-generated fakes be addressed through the expansion of existing legal doctrines like personality rights and defamation, or is a broad, new "disinformation" law necessary? Critics of the proposed Bill would argue that targeted civil remedies, as seen in the Delhi High Court, represent a more proportionate and less restrictive means of tackling the problem than a sweeping state-level criminal statute.

As Karnataka proceeds with its legislative ambitions, the legal community will be watching closely. The outcome will not only shape the digital landscape of the state but will also serve as a crucial test case for the delicate balance between maintaining public order in the digital age and upholding the constitutional guarantee of free expression that forms the bedrock of Indian democracy.