In the present era of instant information, differentiating truth from lies is becoming harder. India, with over 95.04 crores internet users, is at the centre of a growing problem: fake news.
There are two kinds of false information: misinformation, which is shared by mistake, and disinformation, which is spread intentionally to deceive people. Knowing the difference is important to fight the threat effectively.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, India saw a dramatic 214% rise in false information, with the country responsible for one in every six pieces of pandemic-related misinformation worldwide.
Social media platforms, especially WhatsApp and Facebook, acted as major conduits for this misinformation. While initially celebrated for connecting people, these platforms are now proving vulnerable to manipulation by both state and non-state actors. Malicious campaigns aimed at spreading disinformation have grown rapidly, affecting political opinions, sowing distrust, and even fueling violent acts.
The crisis has worsened with the advent of synthetic media, particularly deepfake images, audio, and video, which can be indistinguishable from authentic content. AI-driven tools now enable the creation of highly realistic videos of public figures saying things they never did. This technology not only manipulates political narratives but also entrenches social divides. For instance, during India’s 2024 Lok Sabha elections, deepfake content, while not entirely dominant, contributed to reinforcing biases and swaying voter sentiment.
Despite their reach and influence, platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and X (formerly Twitter) have faced criticism for their sluggish response to curbing misinformation.
Efforts like X’s “Community Notes” haven’t been able to keep up with the rapid spread of falsehoods, often giving bad actors more time to exploit the system.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) faces mounting challenges in curbing manipulated content. Limited resources have hindered its ability to forge partnerships with fact-checkers and journalists, and the absence of clear guidelines on synthetic media compounds the problem.
Fact-checkers at Boom found that over half of misinformation incidents involved verified accounts, and about 70% of false claims spread via at least one verified handle. NewsChecker identified that 38% of false information originated from verified pages, often targeting specific communities with divisive content.
The consequences are severe. A UNESCO-Ipsos survey revealed that 85% of urban Indian respondents encounter online hate speech, with around 64% pointing to social media as a primary source. Misinformation erodes public trust, deepens social divides, incites violence, and threatens democratic institutions.
AI algorithms that prioritize user engagement by curating content based on prior interactions create feedback loops that reinforce confirmation bias, isolating individuals from opposing views and creating echo chambers of misperception. Take, for instance, users following controversial figures like Andrew Tate. Those who engage with his content often find themselves exposed to more misogynistic and hateful material, deepening harmful stereotypes. AI’s ability to analyze vast datasets also allows targeted disinformation, as seen during the 2024 US presidential election, when AI-driven bots amplified anger and fear through personalized propaganda.
The Southport riots in the UK offer a stark illustration. AI-generated images circulated following a violent incident, inflaming tensions and mobilizing individuals toward violent protests. This rapid escalation underscores the dangers of unchecked AI-driven misinformation.
In another instance, in 2022, a deepfake video of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attempted to mislead viewers regarding his actions during a conflict. Such technologies exploit visual media trust, allowing extremists to manipulate perceptions and provoke reactions.
Despite facing a severe global disinformation crisis, India still lacks a robust legal framework to effectively combat fake news. Current laws, like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000, offer only partial solutions. For example, specific sections in the BNS, such as Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) and Section 353 (statements causing public mischief), along with Section 352 (intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace) and Section 351(4) (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication), address certain cases but do not cover the full scope of the problem. Similarly, Section 66D of the IT Act 2000, which penalizes cheating by personation using computer resources, is too narrow to address widespread disinformation. Other ad hoc responses, like internet shutdowns or directives to WhatsApp group admins, are temporary fixes rather than permanent solutions. While certain provisions in the Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act help during emergencies, they are limited in scope and cannot tackle the larger issue of fake news during peacetime.
Judicial interventions have shed light on the issue, with the Supreme Court and High Court urging the government to curb the spread of misinformation, especially in times of crisis. However, without a formal law, courts can only do so much. The separation of powers restricts judicial action in enacting or enforcing comprehensive regulation.
In contrast, other nations have moved forward with strong fake news laws. Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act prescribes harsh penalties, including fines of up to S$500,000 (about INR 2.65 crore) and jail terms for deliberate misinformation.
France and Germany have enacted strict laws that mandate social media platforms to remove fake news within 24 hours or face hefty fines. These examples reflect a serious commitment to tackling disinformation, which India would do well to emulate. However, any such legislation here must respect the fine balance between curbing disinformation and safeguarding free speech.
India’s closest attempt at regulating fake news lies in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 (IT Amendment Rules, 2023). However, the Court has struck down these rules. Another relevant legislation is the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, but its implementation faces serious challenges. The government allocated only Rs 2 crore for the Data Protection Board, with just Rs 4 lakhs set aside for crucial infrastructure like the digital portal.
In the fight against the pervasive threat of fake news, the task of reforming legislation may appear intimidating. However, this very challenge can provide a sturdy platform for sustainable solutions. The truth is that many existing legal structures are antiquated and poorly designed, failing to provide the essential mechanisms needed to effectively counter the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation. With the emergence of modern technologies like deepfakes and AI-generated content, these laws are not only outdated but often lack clear definitions for the very issues they aim to address.
To establish a strong anti-fake news framework in India, we must anchor our efforts in three fundamental principles: transparency, the protection of freedom of expression, and the safeguarding of citizens' privacy.
(Vaishu Rai is a LAMP Fellow-PRS Legislative and independent policy consultant)