Evaluating the Effectiveness of Social Media Regulations in Controlling Misinformation

India’s Misinformation Crisis: Regulatory Gaps and Constitutional Challenges

Misinformation is spreading at an alarming rate across India, recently identified as the country’s second-most significant risk in the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2025. Despite this growing threat, India lacks a comprehensive framework specifically designed to combat the spread of false information, a regulatory gap that becomes more apparent when compared internationally.

Between 2011 and 2022, 78 countries passed legislation limiting the spread of misinformation on social media, according to the Centre for International Media Assistance. India, however, continues to rely on a patchwork of existing media regulations that were not designed for today’s digital landscape.

Currently, print media is governed by the Norms of Journalistic Conduct under the Press Council Act of 1978, while television channels operate under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act of 1995, which prohibits broadcasting content that is “obscene, defamatory, deliberately false, or contains suggestive innuendos and half-truths.” For social media and digital news publishers, the government has implemented the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 under the IT Act of 2000.

Despite these regulations, incidents of fake news have continued to rise dramatically. A 2020 Harvard study found that approximately 10% of images shared on WhatsApp in India contained misinformation. The recent Aadhaar data leak, which exposed the personal information of 81.5 crore Indians on the dark web via Telegram, further highlighted the need for more effective oversight of social media platforms.

Justice Gokhale, in the Kunal Kamra v. Union of India case, emphasized the severity of the situation: “Presently, the threat of disinformation and hoaxes has evolved from mere annoyance to warfare that can create social discord, increase polarization and, in some cases, even influence election outcomes. State and non-state actors with geopolitical aspirations, ideological believers, violent extremists, and economically motivated enterprises can manipulate social media narratives with unprecedented reach and scale.”

The challenge lies in developing effective regulations without infringing on constitutional rights. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which the Supreme Court expanded to include the right to information in the State of UP v. Raj Narain case. When misinformation is spread under the guise of free speech, the state can invoke Article 19(2) to impose “reasonable restrictions.”

To determine what constitutes reasonable restrictions, the Supreme Court recently revised its proportionality test in the Electoral Bond Scheme case, establishing a four-prong approach: the restriction must have a legitimate aim, demonstrate a rational connection to that aim, represent the least restrictive means to achieve it, and strike an appropriate balance between fundamental rights and public purpose.

Crossing these boundaries would constitute censorship. Yet the court recognized in Facebook v. Delhi Legislative Assembly that social media platforms bear responsibility for third-party content despite their status as intermediaries.

India’s regulatory framework also falls short when compared internationally. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) of 2023 caps penalties for data breaches at 250 crore rupees, regardless of company size. This contrasts sharply with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which can fine violators €20 million or 4% of annual turnover, whichever is higher—ensuring that even tech giants face proportional consequences.

Australia’s recent experience offers cautionary lessons. The Australian government introduced legislation to combat misinformation with penalties of up to 5% of a company’s global revenue for non-compliance. However, the bill was abandoned after criticism for its vague definitions and potential to restrict legitimate expression. The Australian Human Rights Commission noted that “freedom of expression is not sufficiently protected” by the proposed law.

For India, the key lesson is the need for balanced regulation that respects individual rights while holding platforms accountable. The Nariman Committee, headed by F.S. Nariman, recommended principles for media regulation including trusteeship (seeking truth with integrity), self-regulation (ensuring impartiality), content regulation (avoiding prior censorship), complaint mechanisms (addressing grievances fairly), and balance (using proportional and minimally invasive measures).

Implementing these principles would require an independent media regulatory authority to oversee the dissemination of information while preventing arbitrary action. As the fourth pillar of democracy, media must remain verifiable and legitimate to maintain public trust and social harmony in an increasingly digital information environment.