Democracy involves right to informed choice: HC while hearing challenge to fact check unit rule | India News

MUMBAI: Apart from right to vote democracy involves right to have informed choice, remarked the Bombay high court while hearing submissions in multiple challenges to the new rule for Centre to establish its own fact check unit to weed out online posts that are fake, false or misleading about the ‘business of the central government’.
“If we have to continue as fully informed citizens, fully engaged in a democratic polity this rule has to be struck down,’’ argued Shadan Farasat counsel for the Editors Guild of India saying the news consumption now is more online than print and the effect of the new fact check unit to identify rule is to hit at “circulation’’ which is protected under right to freedom of speech.
Justice Gautam Patel heading the division bench that also comprises Justice Neela Gokhale earlier in the day while senior counsel Navroz Seervai was arguing—he represents the original petitioner comedian Kunal Kamra– also orally observed “while ‘misleading’ is most problematic, what is troubling me is something else….why are you (govt) doing this only with reference with business of government.”
The EGI argued What the government wants a political discourse sanitised by the government. “Right not to be told what the truth is, by your government, is what differentiates citizens from subjects,’’ the lawyer said.
Seervai who concluded his submissions stressed on how the new rule enabling Centre to set up the FCU “ violates the fundamental principles of natural justice as the Central Government (by handpicking and designating a fact-check unit), and also the forum where persons aggrieved by decisions of this FCU, functions as a judge in its own cause in determining what content is “fake, false and misleading”’’
Besides, there is no notice and no hearing afforded, said Seervai, which is in violation of the most basic principles of natural justice rendering the rule “ manifestly arbitrary, and present a real likelihood of bias.’’
Farasat making swift and succinct submissions said, ” Rule, in specifically singling out posts concerning the ‘business’ of the Central Government, attempts the censoring of ‘political speech’, the kind of speech forming the core, the very genesis, of the protections against State guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression).
In India everyone discusses political developments and keeping political speech at the very core of Article 19(1)(a)’s strictest protection, has been recognised by the Indian Supreme Court as well as US courts, he said.
“What do we discuss the most today? Core of discussion is political discussion …Debate on public issues must be uninhibited. My right as a participant in democracy does not end with me casting the vote. Article 19(1) (a) includes my right to participate in democracy via discussion on issues. By excluding such debate it is ultra vires the constitution,” said Farasat adding, “Given the nature of speech which is sought to be restricted the HC would apply the highest standard of scrutiny available (in deciding its Constitutionality).”
Farasat also said the rule fails the test under the ‘doctrine of proportionality’ and is “manifestly arbitrary’ as it bars on one medium (online) and not for the other (print) hence on this very ground of arbitrariness, it must be set aside.
The HC will continue hearing the matter on Friday when senior lawyer Arvind Datar will argue on behalf of an association that represents 27 TV channels.