Listen to the article
Karnataka Proposes ‘Name and Shame’ Approach for Misinformation Offenders
Karnataka’s IT Minister Priyank Kharge has announced that the state’s forthcoming Misinformation Bill will include provisions to “name and shame” individuals who deliberately spread false information online. The announcement came during his keynote address at a public policy discussion titled “Truth, Trust and Technology” at the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru.
“We want to name and shame people who deliberately mislead the public,” Kharge stated, emphasizing that the bill aims to ensure “truth travels faster than lies and that trust triumphs over fear.” According to Kharge, the bill is expected to be introduced during Karnataka’s winter session in December, following consultations with legal experts and the Home Department.
The initiative comes amid growing concerns about the rapid spread of misinformation in India’s vast digital landscape. Kharge cited alarming statistics to illustrate the scale of the problem, noting that WhatsApp has over 500 million users in India, YouTube close to 500 million, and Instagram 421 million. He referenced a 2023 report from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) indicating that 88% of Indians have admitted to sharing misinformation, with nearly half of such content being political in nature.
“These are not mere statistics; they reflect the erosion of our collective information ecosystem,” Kharge warned. “Misinformation has real-world consequences. People think they can say anything online without impact, but it has destroyed economies, communities, and even taken lives.”
The journey of Karnataka’s Misinformation Bill has been contentious from the start. Earlier this year, a leaked draft of the bill drew criticism after reports emerged that portions had been copied from a private bill introduced in the Indian Parliament by BJP MP Manoj Kotak. The leaked draft proposed creating a state-appointed fake news regulatory authority, raising significant concerns about press freedom and government overreach.
Following the backlash, Kharge dissociated himself from the leaked draft, claiming it was neither official nor final. In late October, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah confirmed the state’s intention to introduce legislation against misinformation, stating, “We will file cases against those indulging in misinformation, giving false information to people, and disturbing communal harmony.”
In his recent address, Kharge outlined how the government categorizes harmful content into three types: misinformation (incorrect information shared carelessly), disinformation (false information created and shared deliberately to mislead), and malinformation (true information used maliciously or out of context). He assured that the draft bill “excludes satire, parody, opinion, and art” and does not criminalize dissent or creativity.
The minister also called on social media companies to take greater responsibility for content on their platforms. “By allowing such information to be amplified, they are indirectly responsible, and it violates their own policies,” he said, adding that the government aims to bring all platforms “under one ambit” to better regulate harmful information while protecting free speech.
However, practical implementation questions remain unanswered. Tracing the “originators” of misinformation presents significant technical challenges, especially on end-to-end encrypted platforms like WhatsApp, which has previously stated it would cease operations in India rather than break encryption. Furthermore, determining liability in the complex chain of information sharing—from creators to amplifiers to those who alter content—raises legal complexities.
The bill also faces the challenge of distinguishing between malicious intent and genuine misunderstanding in an ecosystem driven by algorithms, bots, and political party IT cells. Without proper constitutional due diligence, false accusations could lead to serious violations of fundamental rights.
As Karnataka moves forward with this legislation, the balance between combating harmful misinformation and protecting free expression remains delicate, with significant implications for India’s digital information landscape.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
Tackling misinformation is critical, but this ‘name and shame’ provision seems heavy-handed. I hope the bill will include clear guidelines, appeal mechanisms, and oversight to prevent abuse and protect legitimate discourse.
Well said. Any measures to address misinformation must be carefully calibrated to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine free expression and public trust.
Curbing misinformation is a worthy goal, but this ‘name and shame’ idea seems like a blunt instrument. I hope the bill will include robust safeguards to prevent abuse and protect legitimate free speech.
Well said. Any measures to tackle misinformation must be carefully crafted to avoid chilling effects on public discourse. Transparency and independent oversight will be crucial.
Addressing misinformation is important, but a ‘name and shame’ provision raises concerns around potential abuse and chilling effects on free expression. I hope the bill is carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences.
Valid points. Balancing public interest with individual rights will be challenging. Transparency and oversight mechanisms will be crucial to ensure the bill is implemented fairly.
Interesting approach to tackle misinformation. Naming and shaming could be a powerful deterrent, but it will be crucial to ensure due process and avoid abuse. Curious to see the details of the proposed bill and how it balances free speech concerns.
Agreed. Misinformation is a major issue that needs addressing, but any measures must uphold democratic principles. The devil will be in the details, and stakeholder consultation will be key.
While curbing the spread of misinformation is a worthy goal, the ‘name and shame’ approach seems heavy-handed. I’d be interested to learn more about the specific criteria for identifying offenders and the appeal/redress process.
Agreed. The devil is in the details, and the bill should be scrutinized to ensure it doesn’t infringe on legitimate free speech. Safeguards against misuse will be critical.
The rapid growth of social media has exacerbated the spread of misinformation, so action is needed. However, this ‘name and shame’ proposal raises concerns about potential overreach. Clear definitions and due process will be essential.
Absolutely. Addressing misinformation is important, but heavy-handed measures could backfire. A balanced, rights-respecting approach is needed to maintain public trust.
Misinformation is a serious problem, but the ‘name and shame’ approach raises red flags. I’m curious to see how the bill defines offenses and ensures due process. Safeguarding free speech should be a top priority.
Agreed. Combating misinformation is important, but the proposed measures seem overly punitive. Balancing public interest with individual rights will require nuance and stakeholder input.