New Delhi: The Supreme Court revived the Union government’s appeal against the Bombay High Court’s September 2024 ruling that quashed the Centre’s attempt to set up a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, after the government informed the court that it had decided to pursue a judicial remedy.
Eight months after the petition was rejected due to failure to address the defects in the petition, Justice Vijay Bishnoi granted the Centre’s restoration request after considering the reasons raised. “IA No. 314593/2025 is allowed to condone delay in filing of restoration application… IA No. 314591/2025 is allowed for restoration application… Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been restored to its original number,” the court order issued on Thursday said.
The Center is represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Advocate Rajat Nair.
The SLP, which is challenging the validity of the Supreme Court ruling, was earlier removed from the administrative side after the Center failed to address the defects pointed out by the registry within the time granted by the court.
The Union government filed its petition on December 24, 2024, attacking the Supreme Court’s September 26, 2024 judgment in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India and Related Matters, along with the third judge’s September 2024 opinion, and the earlier January 31, 2024 split judgment.
On April 25, 2025, the Supreme Court granted six weeks to raise the office’s objections, explaining that failure to do so would result in dismissal without further referral to court. Since the defects were not remedied, the petition was denied in June 2025.
In its recall request, the Center said that after filing the petition, it conducted internal deliberations on whether the issues raised by the Supreme Court could be addressed “without resorting to judicial procedures.” She said that these deliberations included a “detailed study of different viewpoints” across government authorities.
She added that by the time the final decision was made to proceed with the appeal, the six-week period had passed.
The center stated that the delay was not deliberate or intentional, but rather was caused by “government operations and views that had to be obtained from various authorities.” She said her right to seek relief under Article 136 of the Constitution should not be invalidated by reason of good faith or inadvertent error.
Accepting the explanation, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and restored the SLP number to its original number.
The suit centers around Rule 3(1)(b)(5) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended in 2023. The amendment empowers the Center to notify the Fact Checking Unit (FCU) to identify “fake, false or misleading” information in connection with the actions of the Central government.
The controversy intensified in March 2024 when the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) notified the Fact Checking Unit of the Press Information Bureau as the designated FCU under the amended rules. Later, the Supreme Court stayed the notification, citing serious constitutional issues and ordered the NFL not to operate pending adjudication before the Bombay High Court.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justices JS Patel and Neela Gokhale, delivered a split ruling in January 2024. While Justice Patel struck down the rule as unconstitutional, Justice Gokhale upheld it, leading to a third judge being referred to.
Justice A S Chandorkar (who has since been elevated to the Supreme Court), as the deciding judge, agreed with Justice Patel and held that the impugned amendment was unconstitutional, ultra vires the rule-making power under the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The third judge found that the expressions “false, false or misleading” were vague and broad, lacking objective standards or safeguards.
He argued that this rule effectively made the government “the arbiter of its own case” and had a chilling effect on brokers, who risk losing safe harbor protection if they fail to act on FCU decisions. The Supreme Court thus concluded that the amendment did not meet the proportionality test required for restrictions on fundamental rights and could not be saved by its reading.
Attacking this ruling in the Supreme Court, the Center asserted that the Supreme Court had “wrongly” struck down the amendment. She said there is no constitutional protection for intentional misleading and that the rule enhances the public’s right to “true and accurate information” about the government’s performance.
According to the government, the amendment only aims to “deliberately mislead” and does not extend to criticism, ridicule or comment. She stressed that the FCU’s role is limited to notifying moderators of flagged content and does not enforce automatic removal. It says the brokers’ obligation is only to make “reasonable efforts”.
The Center also argued that the terms “spurious,” “false,” and “misleading” are not unconstitutionally vague and should be interpreted in their ordinary meaning. It has refused to rely on US freedom of expression jurisprudence, asserting that the Indian constitutional framework allows for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
