Karnataka's Digital Quandary: Unpacking the Proposed Fake News and Hate Speech Bills

A detailed examination of the state's latest draft legislations, and their potential impact on digital expression and civil liberties.

The Karnataka Government has recently unveiled two significant draft Bills, the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, and the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025. These proposed legislations, currently under cabinet review and slated for consideration in the Legislature, aim to tackle the complex and rapidly evolving challenges of fake news and hate speech in the digital age. This move follows a surge in communal clashes in Coastal Karnataka, which the government attributes to the spread of misinformation and hate speech on social media.

I. The Impetus Behind the Legislation

The decision to introduce these bills stems from an escalation of communal tensions in Coastal Karnataka in 2023, particularly after the killing of Bajrang Dal activist Suhas Shetty. A fact-finding committee appointed by the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) identified hate speech by youth and religious leaders, alongside the widespread circulation of fake news on social media platforms, as key contributors to these tensions. The proposed Bills are a direct consequence of this report. It's worth noting that Karnataka has previously attempted to regulate online content by establishing a State-level fact-check unit, the Information Disorder Tackling Unit (IDTU), which collaborates with private firms, and by forming district-level units within the State Police to address misinformation.

The Karnataka government's official justification for these bills highlights the perceived inadequacy of existing legal measures to combat these issues. The proposed legislation intends to regulate social media content, specifically aiming to prevent factual inaccuracies and prohibit abusive and obscene content, including "anti-feminist" material. Furthermore, the bills seek to disallow the publication of content that disrespects "Sanatan symbols and beliefs".

II. Key Provisions of the Proposed Bills

Let's delve into the specifics of each draft Bill:

A. The Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025

This Bill focuses on prohibiting fake news and misinformation, establishing a regulatory authority, and outlining penalties.

1. Definitions:

• Fake News: Broadly defined in Section 2(i) to include misquotation, false reporting of statements, audio or video editing that distorts facts or context, or purely fabricated content.

• Misinformation: Defined in Section 2(k) as knowingly or recklessly false or inaccurate statements of fact, excluding opinions, religious/philosophical sermons, satire, comedy, parody, or artistic expression if a reasonable person would not perceive them as factual.

• Communication: Broadly defined in Section 2(d) to encompass sharing information with people in Karnataka, whether in person, via publication, digital devices, television, misinformation-spreading bots, or any other widely accessible medium.

• Intermediary: Defined in Section 2(j) by the Information Technology Act, including a wide range of entities such as telecom providers, internet service providers, web hosts, social media platforms, search engines, and online marketplaces.

• Social Media Platform: Defined in Section 2(p) as any web-based technology designed for virtual user connection, such as social networking, blogging, or video sharing.

2. Penalties for Offenders:

   Offenses under this Bill are classified as cognizable and non-bailable. The proposed penalties are as follows:
   

3. Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority:

   Section 5(2) of the Bill establishes a six-member Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority:

   1. Minister for Kannada & Culture (ex officio Chairperson).

   2. A member of the Legislative Assembly.

   3. A member of the Legislative Council.

   4. Two Government-appointed social media company representatives.

   5. An IAS officer who shall be the Secretary to the Authority.

   This authority's structure is designed to include legislative oversight, industry expertise, and administrative support.

4. Power of the Authority:

   Section 6 empowers the Authority to enforce a complete ban on fake news, abusive and obscene content, including anti-feminist material and content insulting women's dignity, on social media. It will also prohibit content that "disrespects Sanatan symbols and beliefs" or promotes superstition.

5. Permitted Content:

   According to Section 2(e), only the publication of content based on authentic research on subjects related to science, history, religion, philosophy, and literature is allowed.

6. Special Courts and Powers:

   Section 8 mandates special Courts with dedicated public prosecutors for expedited trials. These Courts can issue "Correction Directions" to actively spread accurate information and "Disabling Directions" to immediately block access to misinformation.

B. The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crime (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025

This bill focuses on curbing hate speech and related crimes.

1. Definition:

• Hate Speech: Defined under Section 2(k) as intentionally publishing, propagating, or communicating content designed to harm, incite harm, or spread hatred based on religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability, or tribe. This includes sharing such content electronically, especially when it targets a specific person.

• Hate Crime: Defined under Section 2(j) as harming, inciting harm, or promoting hatred against someone because of prejudice against their family, religion, race, caste, sex, gender, orientation, origin, language, disability, or tribe.

• Harm: Defined under Section 2(i) as any emotional, psychological, physical, social, or economic harm.

• Communication: Defined under Section 2(a) as any display, written, illustrated, visual or other descriptive matter, oral statement, representation or reference, or an electronic communication.

• Intermediary: Defined under Section 2(m) as any person who, on behalf of another, receives, stores, or transmits electronic records or provides services related to them, including broadcast channels, telecom service providers, internet service providers, social media platforms, search engines, and online marketplaces.

2. Categories of Offenses: The bill lists 11 kinds of offenses of hate speech and hate crime defined under Section 5 and Section 3, based on identity characteristics such as religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability, or tribe. These offenses are non-cognizable and non-bailable.

3. Penalties for Offenders:

   Proposed punitive action includes up to three years imprisonment and a fine up to 5,000 for those found guilty under Section 5(1) and Section 6(1).

4. Exemptions:

   The bill provides exemptions under Section 5 (2) (a) and Section 5 (2)(b) for bona fide artistic creativity, performance or other forms of expression, academic or scientific inquiry, fair and accurate reporting or commentary in the public interest, or the publication of information, commentary, advertisement or notice, or the espousing of any religious tenet or belief.

5. Intermediary Liability:

   According to Section 7(2), if an Intermediary knowingly or negligently allows someone to use their service to commit an offense under this Act, they can face up to three years in prison, a fine, or both.

6. Victim Impact Assessment:

   Section 8 mandates that while prosecuting hate offenses, the court must consider the victim's interests and the impact of the crime on them, ideally through a "victim impact statement". This statement details the physical, psychological, social, or economic consequences on the victim and their family.

7. Prevention of Acts leading to Hate Crime and Hate Speech:

   Section 9 grants the District Magistrate proactive power to issue written orders prohibiting any act they believe is likely to create fear, intimidation, and ill-will against a community, caste, or group, especially if an offense under this Act has been committed. These orders can last up to 30 to 60 days.

III. Legal Analysis and Concerns

While the government cites curbing hate speech and fake news as the intention behind these bills, several legal concerns and potential challenges have been raised.

1. Misinformation & Fake News Bill Unlikely to Stand Judicial Scrutiny:

Experts believe this bill is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. While the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions, the bill's overbroad definitions and classification of permitted content are likely to be challenged in courts.

2. Hate Speech Bill May Survive (with caveats):

Parts of the proposed Hate Speech Bill might survive judicial scrutiny as many categories of "speech" are already penalized to varying degrees under existing laws (e.g., Atrocities Act for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, BNS for offensive speech against women). However, the addition of new "categories" of offensive speech will require careful scrutiny by the courts. The inclusion of 'sexual orientation' as a category of hate speech is particularly noteworthy.

3. Concern over Vagueness in Definitions:

A significant concern is the vague and subjective definitions of "misinformation" and "fake news" within the bill. Rules against "disrespect of Sanatan Symbols and beliefs" and "promoting superstition" lack clear legal standards. The requirement for content to be based on "authentic research" in subjects like science, history, religion, and philosophy is also problematic, as "authenticity" in these areas is often subjective and debatable, not scientific fact. Giving the State the power to decide what constitutes "authentic research" is seen as a considerable overreach, potentially allowing the State to control narratives on social media and dictate what is valid or not.

4. Overlap with Misinformation Bill:

There's a notable overlap between the two bills, with the Misinformation Bill opting for a more stringent, immediate approach, allowing for easy arrests and detention. While the Hate Speech Bill also makes offenses non-bailable, it requires a court order for investigation and arrest, implying a somewhat higher threshold. The significant disparity in penalties and arrests could create a strong deterrent effect, potentially discouraging individuals from expressing legitimate content that might be misconstrued as fake or misinformation.

5. Penalisation of Disrespect to 'Sanatan' Symbols:

The use of the word 'Sanatan' in reference to disrespect of religious symbols is understood to specifically include Hindu religious icons and symbols. This definition serves a clear purpose in the context of escalating communal tensions in Coastal Karnataka and could also address potential concerns directed at the State Government regarding the bill.

6. Preventive Powers under the Hate Speech Bill:

The Hate Speech Bill grants District Magistrates (DMs) and Competent Authorities significant proactive powers to stop hate speech and crimes. If a DM believes an action could cause fear or promote hate among communities, they can order it to stop. Similarly, a Competent Authority can control or ban assemblies, processions, and even the use of loud instruments if they believe it might lead to a breach of peace or an offense under the Act. These broad powers, based on subjective judgments, raise concerns about the potential for suppressing lawful protests and free speech in the State due to a lack of clear safeguards against abuse.

7. Concerns regarding the Chairperson of the Fake News Regulatory Authority:

Naming the Minister for Kannada and Culture Information and Broadcasting as the head of the new Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority raises concerns. The inclusion of "Information and Broadcasting" in the title and the primary focus of the Culture Ministry on arts and heritage seem to overlook the complex technical realities of digital content, which typically fall under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology's expertise. This choice suggests the Karnataka Government views fake news primarily as a cultural issue, potentially overlooking the technical nuances of digital content.

8. Procedural Fairness and Due Process Concern:

The Bill's procedural aspects are deeply concerning due to their "arrest first, question later" approach to misinformation. Classifying offenses as cognizable and non-bailable allows arrests without warrants and makes bail difficult. Furthermore, direct cognizance by Special Courts bypasses crucial scrutiny, and limiting High Courts' inherent powers to quash proceedings significantly curtails legal recourse against potentially malicious charges. This stringent framework, usually reserved for grave state crimes, when applied to subjective "misinformation," raises serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the potential for weaponizing the law against dissent, thereby impacting fundamental rights to liberty and fair trial.

9. Intermediary Liability and Due Diligence Obligation:

The Bill significantly burdens intermediaries, essentially forcing them to become content police. While existing IT laws have already increased their due diligence, this Bill's "complete prohibition" on fake news and severe penalties for non-compliance mean platforms will likely over-censor to avoid liability. This privatizes censorship, undermining the "safe harbor" principle meant to protect intermediaries, and is likely to chill online speech as platforms remove even ambiguous content out of caution.

10. Legislation is Unenforceable in Practical Terms:

The proposed Bill, aiming to regulate social media content and broadly defining intermediaries, implicitly extends its reach to global platforms. This extraterritorial application will likely face significant hurdles in practical enforcement. By creating an additional, complex compliance barrier, the legislation might open the scope for the State and Police to misuse provisions to harass individuals rather than genuinely increase compliance burden for Multinational Corporations.

11. Violation of Supreme Court Judgments:

The bills are likely to face challenges based on Supreme Court precedents. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized safeguarding freedom of expression in the digital realm and struck down Section 66A for being vague and penalizing individuals based on subjective criteria. The definitions in these new bills, especially the Misinformation Bill's definition of misinformation, could be challenged for failing to meet the "proximate link" test established by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Bombay High Court in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India observed that a government body acting as the arbiter of criticism against itself posed a risk to free expression. The proposed regulatory authority, with its government-appointed members, is unlikely to act impartially.

12. Possible Overlap with Existing Legislations:

Existing provisions in the BNS already address aspects of hate speech and harmful content. While the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, states its provisions are in addition to existing laws , the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025, includes a caveat regarding inconsistency. This coexistence of multiple laws (Misinformation Bill, Hate Speech Bill, and IPC) creates a complex web of overlapping jurisdiction. The Hate Speech caveat suggests a potential for the new law to override existing ones in case of conflict, which could lead to "forum shopping" by complainants seeking the statute with the most stringent penalties or procedural advantage.

13. Creation of Statutory Fact Check Unit:

The Fake News Bill institutionalizes a state-level fact-check unit, which the State government had previously created. This institutionalization runs parallel to the Central Government's attempt to create a national-level fact-check unit via PIB, an attempt that has already been stayed by the Bombay High Court. It is therefore likely that the Karnataka Government's attempt will similarly be stayed by the Judiciary.

IV. Conclusion

The proposed bills by the Karnataka Government are poised to face significant Constitutional and judicial challenges. They raise substantial concerns regarding free speech and the potential for abuse against individuals merely criticizing government policies. The disproportionate penalties and the government-heavy composition of the Fake News Regulatory Authority raise serious questions about due process, independence, and potential for political influence. Drawing from Supreme Court precedents like Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and the Mohammed Zubair case, which emphasize narrowly tailored and proportionate restrictions on speech, the current draft of these Bills is likely to be struck down for violating Fundamental Rights by imposing unreasonable restrictions that do not align with principles of necessity and proportionality.