Karnataka’s fake news bill sparks national alarm: Free speech or state surveillance?

In a move that could have sweeping implications for India's digital ecosystem, the Karnataka government is preparing to roll out one of the country’s most stringent anti-misinformation laws- the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025. Tabled for cabinet review this week, the draft law aims to criminalize the dissemination of false information online, prescribing prison terms of up to seven years and fines as high as Rs 10 lakh, or both.

State Law Minister HK Patil confirmed that the draft was among two proposed legislations, the other being the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crime Prevention Bill, 2025, in response to rising online toxicity, including fake news, hate speech, and communal disinformation.

But as the bill gains traction politically, it has ignited a debate about its legality, scope, and potential misuse, especially in a time when India’s digital economy is rapidly expanding and grappling with the complexities of AI-generated content and algorithmic amplification of falsehoods.

What the Bill Proposes

The draft law defines “misinformation” broadly to include any false content that could incite hatred, disturb public order, influence elections, disrespect religious sentiments, or target the dignity of women. The penalties proposed include:

Imprisonment: 2 to 5 years, extendable to 7 years in aggravated cases.

Fines: Up to Rs 10 lakh.

Jurisdiction: Applies to content shared anywhere online, regardless of where the originator is based.

The draft bill defines fake news to include misquoting individuals, or publishing false and/or inaccurate reports of their statements. It also covers the editing of audio or video clips that result in the distortion of facts or context. Additionally, it applies to individuals or entities- natural or juridical, organized or unorganized- who use social media platforms to disseminate messages or information through accounts that are either verified or operated under pseudonyms, fictitious names, or false identities.

It further states that the state government will be responsible for enforcing a complete ban on fake news on social media platforms. To implement the provisions of the Act, it proposes to set up a Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority.

Read more: New consent API under DPDP Act set to redefine data use rules for digital platforms

The Authority will be chaired by the Minister for Kannada and Culture and Information and Broadcasting (as ex-officio chairperson). Other members will include one representative each from the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, to be nominated by their respective presiding officers, two representatives from social media platforms to be appointed by the state government, and an IAS officer who will serve as the Authority’s secretary.

Business, Legal, and Free Speech Fallout

The legislation poses major compliance challenges for digital platforms, especially intermediaries like X, Meta, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Legal experts warn it could lead to over-removal of content to avoid liability, harming user engagement, local businesses, and creators. Small startups and news aggregators may be particularly vulnerable due to lack of legal infrastructure.

“The bill’s extraterritorial reach could make Karnataka a hub of digital policing,” says Dinesh Jotwani, Co-Managing Partner, Jotwani Associates. “Any content, posted from anywhere in India or abroad, could invite an FIR in Karnataka, possibly leading to international legal complications. This could open the floodgates to litigation and may lead to international warrants being issued against unknown offenders. The highly subjective definition of "fake news" is likely to result in a deluge of FIRs across the state. ”

Finding the source from where misinformation started spreading is in itself is a difficult task.

The subjective definition of "fake news" under the Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, allows for easy lodging of FIRs against media outlets. This risk of widespread police action, coupled with potential jail terms and fines, can create a chilling effect, leading to self-censorship and effectively muzzling free media.

Additionally, in an age of AI, videos, messages, and photographs are easily manipulated, often with unknown repercussions and origins of content.

From influencers and stand-up comedians to journalists and meme-makers, many fear a chilling effect. The ambiguity of terms like “disrespect” or “misinformation” may encourage self-censorship, stifling satire, critique, and political dissent.

Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at KS Legal, says, “This is a well-intentioned but flawed attempt. It lacks checks and balances, grants excessive power to government authorities, and risks becoming a tool for political suppression.”

Read more: Startups call for higher thresholds in ex ante regulations under Draft Digital Competition Bill

While the intent to safeguard public order, health, and communal harmony in an era of rampant digital misinformation is laudable, the Bill’s overly expansive definitions of “misinformation” and “fake news,” combined with its severe punitive measures, pose a palpable threat to constitutional freedoms, she points out.

The establishment of a government-controlled regulatory authority, devoid of transparent checks or independent oversight, risks empowering the ruling party to arbitrarily suppress dissent under the pretext of combating falsehoods. Moreover, the Bill’s extraterritorial reach and reliance on subjective terms like “disrespect” to specific ideologies could exacerbate enforcement inconsistencies and legal challenges.

Furthermore, the absence of public consultation undermines democratic principles, potentially alienating stakeholders who rely on free expression, Chandwani highlights.

Though misinformation demands action, this legislation, in its current form, tilts perilously toward authoritarianism, necessitating rigorous revision to balance enforcement with the inviolable right to free speech, say experts.

Constitutional experts point to the Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case, where the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for similar vagueness and arbitrary enforcement. Critics argue Karnataka’s bill could face the same fate unless drastically amended.

Mishi Choudhary, Founder of digital rights group SFLC.in, views the bill as part of a troubling national pattern, “This is not about solving misinformation; it’s about controlling the narrative. State-level laws with vague terms and harsh penalties are dangerous. We need stronger cyber-police units, not censorship tools.”

A Long-Overdue Measure

Some digital governance advocates see merit in the legislation.

Aruna Sharma, former Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY), says, “With self-regulation failing and fake news damaging public trust, this is a welcome step. Readers deserve fact-checked, truthful content. The bill may serve as a deterrent and restore credibility in public discourse.”

"A beneficial consequence of this Bill is that individuals will likely exercise greater caution when sharing political, religious, or communal content," points out a senior media executive.

Read more: Industry endorses withdrawal of draft Digital Competition Bill

Although beyond policy implications, enforcement of the bill poses its own hurdles including identifying original offenders, meanwhile global platforms may not comply due to privacy commitments and jurisdictional issues.

If passed, Karnataka’s bill could embolden other states to introduce similarly restrictive digital laws. This could fracture India’s internet governance and create a patchwork of contradictory legal regimes, increasing compliance costs for businesses and limiting user freedoms.

“Do we want a democracy where each state decides what speech is acceptable?” asks a digital expert. “If yes, we risk becoming a federation of censorship zones.”