#FactCheck - Stunning 'Mount Kailash' Video Exposed as AI-Generated Illusion!

Introduction

Criminal justice in India is majorly governed by three laws which are – Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act. The centre, on 11th August 2023’ Friday, proposes a new bill in parliament Friday, which is replacing the country’s major criminal laws, i.e. Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act.

The following three bills are being proposed to replace major criminal laws in the country:

• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 to replace Indian Penal Code 1860.
• The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023, to replace The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, to replace The Indian Evidence Act 1872.

Cyber law-oriented view of the new shift in criminal lawNotable changes:Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023  Indian Penal Code 1860.

‍

‍Way ahead for digitalisation

‍The new laws aim to enhance the utilisation of digital services in court systems, it facilitates online registration of FIR, Online filing of the charge sheet,  serving summons in electronic mode, trial and proceedings in electronic mode etc.  The new bills also allow the virtual appearance of witnesses, accused, experts, and victims in some instances. This shift will lead to the adoption of technology in courts and all courts to be computerised in the upcoming time.

‍Enhanced recognition of electronic records

‍With the change in lifestyle in terms of the digital sphere, significance is given to recognising electronic records as equal to paper records.

‍Conclusion

‍The criminal laws of the country play a significant role in establishing law & order and providing justice. The criminal laws of India were the old laws existing under British rule. There have been several amendments to criminal laws to deal with the growing crimes and new aspects. However, there was a need for well-established criminal laws which are in accordance with the present era. The step of the legislature by centralising all criminal laws in their new form and introducing three bills is a good approach which will ultimately strengthen the criminal justice system in India, and it will also facilitate the use of technology in the court system.

Introduction

On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that cast a sharp light on one of the most overlooked yet pressing issues in modern governance—digital inequity. In a country that has a staggering 900 million Internet users, the ruling highlights a disheartening reality, a paradox that brings the “digital divide” to centre stage. While India may be the world’s second-largest online market, a significant segment of its population remains digitally disenfranchised. The judgment, delivered in response to two interconnected petitions, underscored that access to the internet is no longer a luxury but a lifeline integral to exercising fundamental rights. The court pointed out in clear terms that the government must build a digital ecosystem that is inclusive and accessible to all and attributed the right to digital access as an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 as enshrined under the Indian Constitution. 

Understanding the Context: What Prompted the Petitions? 

The judgment springs out of two writ petitions, which sought instructions or guidelines for people with blindness or limited vision and acid attack survivors, respectively, to conduct digital Know Your Customer (KYC)/e-KYC/video KYC mandated by RBI’s KYC Master Directions, 2016, which were reserved for judgment on January 28. The court delivered the judgment on April 30, 2025, emphasising the fact that true inclusion in this digital era is confounded in an inclusive digital infrastructure, and it must provide reasonable accommodation to those who face impediments due to any disability or disfigurement. 

In consonance with its view, it laid down various guidelines that ensure that all persons with disabilities or acid attack survivors are treated even when digital processes are involved in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RPwD Act”)

Another major observation made by the Honourable SC judges is that the mode of facilitation of government services is through digital platforms, i.e., e-governance, and access to all these welfare schemes is the right of every citizen, irrespective of the fact that they suffer from any disability. The failure of the provisioning of e-governance of these facilities to these individuals is a gross failure of the objectives of these schemes. 

Key Observations and Directives

The court directed the government to release fresh guidelines that establish alternative methods to conduct digital KYC/e-KYC for all persons who suffer any impairment, low vision, or disfigurement with greater sensitivity, particularly for acid-attack survivors. The court made its intention very clear that the right to digital access is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty. All the tasks that are included within the ambit of digital KYC, such as pen-on-paper signatures, screen signatures, and the brief window for OTP entry, create an inaccessible and exclusionary framework, violating not just the dignity but the legal rights granted protection under the RPwD Act, 2016. The ruling directs a fundamental reimagining of digital governance through the lens of inclusion, equality, and dignity. 

Conclusion

The court is not mincing its words when it declares digital accessibility as a constitutional imperative; it has made it clear that bridging the digital divide is no longer optional but a legal duty. The decision marks the new beginning and a propeller of digital transformation, and a delightful amalgamation of digital access and the rights of people. The effect of this judgment will not be restricted to one class of people. Still, it will cater to all those individuals who face these obstacles on a daily basis due to the exclusionary nature of digital platforms. 

References

• https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/right-to-digital-access-part-of-article-21-supreme-court-directs-to-make-ekyc-process-accessible-to-persons-with-disabilities-290778

‍

Introduction

In a setback to the Centre, the Bombay High Court on Friday 20th September 2024, struck down the provisions under IT Amendment Rules 2023, which empowered the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify ‘fake and misleading’ information about its business on social media platforms. 

Chronological Overview

• On 6th April 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 (IT Amendment Rules, 2023). These rules introduced new provisions to establish a fact-checking unit with respect to “any business of the central government”. This amendment was done In exercise of the powers conferred by section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. (IT Act).
• On 20 March 2024, the Central Government notified the Press Information Bureau (PIB) as FCU under rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 (IT Amendment Rules 2023). 
• The next day on  21st March 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the Centre's decision on notifying PIB -FCU, considering the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. A detailed analysis covered by CyberPeace on the Supreme Court Stay decision can be accessed here.
• In the latest development, the Bombay High Court on 20th September 2024, struck down the provisions under IT Amendment Rules 2023, which empowered the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify ‘fake and misleading’ information about its business on social media platforms.  

Brief Overview of Bombay High Court decision dated 20th September 2024

Justice AS Chandurkar was appointed as the third judge after a split verdict in January 2023 by a division bench consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhal.  As a Tie-breaker judge' Justice AS Chandurkar delivered the decision striking down provisions for setting up a Fact Check Unit under IT amendment 2023 rules. Striking down the Centre's proposed fact check unit provision, Justice A S Chandurkar of Bombay High Court also opined that there was no rationale to undertake an exercise in determining whether information related to the business of the Central govt was fake or false or misleading when in digital form but not doing the same when such information was in print. It was also contended that there is no justification to introduce an FCU only in relation to the business of the Central Government. Rule 3(1)(b)(v) has a serious chilling effect on the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution since the communication of the view of the FCU will result in the intermediary simply pulling down the content for fear of consequences or losing the safe harbour provision given under IT Act.  

Justice Chandurkar held that the expressions ‘fake, false or misleading’ are ‘vague and overbroad’, and that the ‘test of proportionality’ is not satisfied. Rule 3(1)(b)(v), was violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and it is “ultra vires”, or beyond the powers, of the IT Act.

Role of Expert Organisations in Curbing Mis/Disinformation and Fake News

In light of the recent developments, and the rising incidents of Mis/Disinformation and Fake News it becomes significantly important that we all stand together in the fight against these challenges. The actions against Mis/Disinformation and fake news should be strengthened by collective efforts, the expert organisations like CyberPeace Foundation plays an key role in enabling and encouraging netizens to exercise caution and rely on authenticated sources, rather than solely rely on govt FCU to block the content. 

Mis/Disinformation and Fake News should be stopped, identified and countered by netizens at the very first stage of its spread. In light of the Bombay High Court's decision to stuck down the provision related to setting up the FCU by the Central Government, it entails that the government's intention to address misinformation related solely to its business/operations may not have been effectively communicated in the eyes of the judiciary.

It is high time to exercise collective efforts against Mis/Disinformation and Fake News and support expert organizations who are actively engaged in conducting proactive measures, and campaigns to target these challenges, specifically in the online information landscape. CyberPeace actively publishes fact-checking reports and insights on Prebunking and Debunking, conducts expert sessions and takes various key steps aimed at empowering netizens to build cognitive defences to recognise the susceptible information, disregard misleading claims and prevent further spreads to ensure the true online information landscape.

References:

• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/09/20/bombay-high-court-it-rules-amendment-2023-fact-check-units-article14-article19-legal-news/#:~:text=Bombay%20High%20Court%3A%20A%20case,grounds%20that%20it%20violated%20constitutional
• https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/bombay-hc-strikes-down-it-act-amendment-fact-check-unit-9579044/
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/supreme-court-stay-on-centres-notification-of-pibs-fact-check-unit-under-it-amendment-rules-2023

‍