Karnataka High Court Labels Fake News on Social Media as “Grave Threat” to Democracy

The Karnataka High Court has issued a strongly worded judgment against the proliferation of fake news and misinformation on social media platforms, describing it as a serious threat to public trust, social harmony, and democratic institutions.

In a comprehensive 351-page ruling in the case of X Corp vs Union of India, Justice M. Nagaprassana rejected the platform’s challenge to Indian social media regulations. The court ruled on September 24 that X Corp (formerly Twitter), as a foreign entity, cannot invoke Article 19 of the Indian Constitution to challenge the country’s social media laws.

The judgment highlights how social media, once celebrated as a transformative communication tool, has evolved into what the court termed a “fountainhead of misinformation, disinformation and malice.” Justice Nagaprassana referenced academic research showing that platforms initially promising enlightenment have instead become “stages of falsehood.”

The court provided several troubling examples of real-world consequences stemming from unchecked misinformation. These included mob lynchings triggered by viral WhatsApp and Facebook rumors about child kidnappers, communal tensions sparked by fabricated hate speech, and public panic during India’s 2016 demonetization when false messages claimed new currency notes contained tracking microchips.

COVID-19 misinformation received particular attention, with the court noting how messages dismissing the pandemic as a hoax encouraged people to defy public health measures and spread unfounded vaccine fears.

“The spread of fake news has been characterized as a social problem creating negative externalities by threatening the ability of the public to trust legitimate news outlets and traditional journalism to preserve democratic institutions,” observed the bench.

The court raised pointed questions about social behavior in the digital age: Why do people readily believe unverified messages without checking sources? Why don’t individuals verify information despite having easy technological means to do so? And why is fake news forwarded rather than reported, amplifying its harmful reach?

Regarding regulation, Justice Nagaprassana emphasized that oversight of social media is not optional but a “solemn necessity.” The judgment warned that unchecked misuse of these platforms could cause significant harm, particularly to vulnerable groups like women. While acknowledging the importance of free speech, the court was unequivocal that such freedom cannot be weaponized: “In the guise of free speech, menace cannot be allowed to fester and spread.”

The ruling also dismissed comparisons with American legislation like the TAKE IT DOWN Act, stating that Indian laws such as the Information Technology Act are “homegrown” and must be evaluated on their own merits. The court noted that platforms cannot selectively obey U.S. laws while ignoring Indian statutes.

A significant portion of the judgment addressed the role of algorithms in content distribution. X Corp had argued that its platform operates through machine-driven, artificial intelligence systems with minimal human involvement. This claim was firmly rejected by both the Solicitor General and the court.

“Algorithms are not independent actors; they are human imprints,” the order stated, explaining that what appears to be neutral mathematical systems are actually extensions of human judgment. The court detailed how algorithms determine content visibility, potentially elevating harmful or defamatory posts to prominence if they gain initial traction.

“Every line of the code is part of the creation of its creator,” Justice Nagaprassana noted, emphasizing that engineers, policymakers, and managers all influence how algorithms function and what outcomes they produce.

In its conclusion, the court rejected the notion that platforms should escape regulation because they are technology-driven, insisting instead on transparency, explainability, and human accountability throughout the algorithmic development process.

“Algorithms may be the new order of the day, but the constitutional demand is old,” the bench concluded. “Power, whether human or digital, must remain accountable.”