Misinformation is hardly a new challenge for India, but the problem has grown sharper in recent years. The rapid spread of affordable smartphones and cheap data has brought millions online, fuelling a digital revolution that has reshaped how people connect, consume news and share opinions. But every innovation has both advantages and disadvantages. The internet revolution has also unleashed fake news and the spread of misinformation that travels faster than facts. From WhatsApp-driven mob violence to conspiracy theories that discouraged COVID-19 vaccinations, the consequences have been deadly and divisive. 

Against this backdrop, the Karnataka government argues that the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025 will act as a shield against the growing threat of online misinformation.

The Bill proposes steep fines and even jail terms for spreading what it defines as “misinformation” or “recklessly distorting facts.” It proposes a Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority, a government-controlled body empowered to police digital content. On paper, the Bill seeks to ensure safety, peace, and electoral integrity.

But behind these promises lurk questions that cut to the heart of India’s democracy. Who defines truth? Who decides what counts as misinformation? And what happens when those in power wield that authority?

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has urged the Karnataka government to reconsider the Draft Bill, which proposes prison terms of up to seven years and fines of Rs 10 lakh for sharing “fake news,” while empowering a state-controlled authority to determine falsehoods. The Bill has neither been published nor opened for public consultation. 

According to a statement released by the IFF on its website, the foundation warns that broadly framed criminal speech offences risk partisan enforcement. IFF urged the state government to drop criminal provisions in favour of rights-respecting civil measures emphasizing transparency, corrections, platform accountability, and mass literacy. 

A nation already nervous about speaking up
To understand why the Bill alarms free-speech advocates, one must look at India’s climate of digital expression. The 'Status of Policing in India Report 2023' found that nearly two-thirds of respondents feared sharing political or social views online due to potential legal trouble. Sixty-five percent worried about offending someone.

That anxiety, critics argue, will only deepen if the Bill becomes law. By threatening punishment for ill-defined offenses such as being “anti-feminist” or “disrespectful to religion,” the Bill risks turning fear into silence. 

The problem with vague terms
At the core of the Bill lies a definitional quagmire. Terms like “recklessly distorting facts” or “prejudicial to public safety” are so broad that they could cover anything from a false election rumour to a sharp editorial against government policy.

Such ambiguity could lead to anything. The proposed Regulatory Authority that includes legislators as well is particularly worrying as it could become a political tool, shielding allies, silencing critics, and allowing the ruling party to dictate the “truth.” It also threatens custodial penalties for sharing allegedly false information. Journalists, activists and ordinary citizens alike could face imprisonment for content that offends the government of the day. 

The Constitutional tightrope
India’s Constitution protects free expression under Article 19(1)(a) but permits “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2). Courts have consistently warned, however, that restrictions must be clear, narrowly defined, and proportional.

The Bill’s vague terminology, combined with harsh penalties, risks breaching the “reasonableness” requirement. Moreover, since online communication falls within the Union List of subjects, the state may even lack the legislative competence to regulate it.

What the Bill intends to do
Supporters argue the Bill is timely and necessary, aiming to penalize repeat offenders and curb malicious misinformation. They believe it can safeguard citizens, reduce communal tensions and foster a healthier, trustworthy digital ecosystem if implemented fairly and transparently.

The risks: Censorship, chill, and collapse of trust
Yet, critics warn that these promises come at a steep cost. The language of the Bill is alarmingly vague, with terms like “recklessly distorting facts” and “prejudicial to public safety” left open to interpretation. It could encourage politically motivated enforcement, turning the law into a weapon against dissent. Social media platforms may over-censor content to avoid liability, reducing the diversity of voices in the digital sphere. There are chances that the smaller media organisations, with almost no legal resources, could be silenced. Even the judiciary, tasked with fast-tracking these cases, may find itself overwhelmed. Over time, the greatest casualty could be public trust itself.

Lessons from abroad
Other countries grappling with fake news have taken different approaches.

•    Singapore’s POFMA (2019): TheProtection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), 2019, requires corrections to be issued within 24 hours. False posts remain online but must carry an official correction notice. This ensures accountability without criminalizing ordinary users. POFMA has been invoked largely against COVID-19 disinformation, with demonstrable success.

•    The UK’s Online Safety Act (2023): This places the burden on platforms to ensure user safety, especially for children. Oversight lies with Ofcom, an independent regulator—not the government.

•    Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021: Focused on harmful content, particularly abuse and cyberbullying, the law empowers eSafety authorities to demand swift takedowns but also invests heavily in user awareness and education.

These examples highlight a key principle: focus on correction, transparency and education, rather than punishment and censorship.

What Karnataka could do instead
Karnataka should fight misinformation through rapid corrections, independent oversight, platform accountability and digital literacy, targeting malicious networks, not citizens; thus safeguarding free speech while addressing coordinated disinformation effectively.

The bigger question: Safety vs. freedom
India’s dilemma is clear: misinformation destabilizes elections, fuels violence and endangers public health, yet heavy-handed laws risk silencing democracy itself. The Karnataka Bill leans toward control, criminalizing speech and concentrating power dangerously. Sweeping definitions and punishments threaten free expression and journalism. Lessons from abroad show better paths, correction notices, accountability, independent oversight, and citizen education. Karnataka must strengthen transparency and literacy, protecting truth without sacrificing liberty, the true foundation of a healthy democracy.

Vishwas Dass, a former Governance Now journalist, is a communications professional and an alumnus of The Takshashila Institution, an independent think tank and public policy school.