New Delhi: In the Supreme Court on March 10 (Tuesday), the Editors Guild and comedian Kunal Kamra asked who decides whether online content is ‘fake or misleading’. The Union government said “when we see it, we know it is fake”, reports The Hindu.The apex court has, significantly, refused to stay the Bombay high court’s decision which has struck down the notification responsible for the setting up of the controversial Press Information Bureau-led, Fact-Check Unit (FCU).The apex court sought ‘balance’ between protecting the nation against fake online content and safeguarding the right to free speech while the Union government said that its Information Technology Rules was not meant to curb humour, satire or criticism of the government.As per India Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the Union government, told the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant-led Bench, that “there is no intention of suppressing comedy, satire or criticism. The question is of fake and fraudulent news.”Also read: Narendra Modi Is Actively Censoring His Critics. Here’s the Proof.The FCU, notified by the Union government via the Press Information Bureau in March 2024, has been in the eye of a controversy. Several media bodies have raised serious objections to its remit and functioning. This, reports The Hindu, was supposed to act as a “deterrent” against the creation and dissemination of fake news or misinformation regarding the “business” of the Centre.The Bombay high court, after petitions filed by the Editors Guild of India and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, had ruled on this and in September 2024, struck down the FCU notification. The court had concluded the amended IT Rules of 2023 “unconstitutional” and violative of Article 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (freedom and right to profession) of the Constitution.The terms, “fake, false and misleading” in the Rules were deemed “vague and hence wrong” in the absence of any definition. The high court had said the government cannot assume the role of the “sole arbiter of truth”.The Centre appealed in the Supreme Court against the high court decision.Senior advocates Arvind Datar and N.H. Seervai, for the Editors Guild, Association of Indian Magazines, News Broadcasters of Digital Association and Kunal Kamra, asked, “Who mans the FCU? How can such a unit be formed on the basis of a notification? The High Court had merely asked the government to frame proper Rules.”“When we see it, we know it is fake,” Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, interjected.The Supreme Court observed, “The question raised in the case [by petitioners] is of paramount importance. It would be better for the Supreme Court to lay down the law. The issues flagged by the high court leads to the question of how to balance rights without destroying the individual Constitutional rights.”CJI Justice Surya Kant expressed concern over actions of intermediaries and said, “You can damage a personal life… you can damage the nation… I am bothered about the impact on the nation.”“There should be clear guidelines,” the CJI said, “but, at the same time, shifting all the onus on the state machinery without putting any obligations on those who play mischief requires a lot of consideration.”The Wire has reported on the Union home ministry’s manuals for the Sahyog portal that read almost like a blueprint to enable quick censorship. They make it easy to ensure bulk deletions, without much application of mind.