#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as BJP-Led Border Fencing on West Bengal-Bangladesh Border

Introduction

The debate between free speech and social responsibility is one of the oldest, long-running debates in history. Free speech is considered to be at the heart of every democracy. It is considered the “mother” of all other freedoms, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution under Part III: Fundamental Rights. It takes various shapes and forms according to the sociopolitical context of society. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a prominent English writer of the 19th century, laid the foundation of every democracy when she wrote in her book, "I disapprove of what you say, but I willdefend to the death your right to say it." The drastic misuse of social media to disseminate propaganda and fakenews makes it a marketplace of half-baked truth, becoming the antithesis ofwhat early philosophers dreamed of for a democratic modern age. Losethe ethics, and there you have it, the modern conceptualisation of freedom ofspeech and expression in the digital age. The right to freedom of speech andexpression is one of the most fundamental rights, but its exercise is notunfettered, and certain limits are placed upon this right under Art. 19 (2).Every right comes with a corresponding duty, and the exercise of such freedomalso puts the citizenry under the responsibility not to violate the rights ofothers and not to use the media to demean any other person.

SocialMedia: The New Public Square or a Weaponised Echo Chamber

InIndia, Art. 19(1)(a) of the constitution guarantees the right to freedom ofspeech and expression, but it is not absolute. Under Art. 19(2), this right issubject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency,morality, and national security. This is construed as a freedom for everyindividual to freely express their opinions, but not to incite violence, spreadfalsehoods, or harm others’ dignity. Unfortunately, the boundaries betweenthese are increasingly blurred.

Thedissemination of unfiltered media and the strangulation of innocence by pushingoften vulgar and obscene content down the throats of individuals, withoutverifying the age and gender profile of the social media user, is a big farcein the name of free speech and a conscious attempt by the intermediaries andsocial media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Threads, etc., to wriggleout of their responsibility. A prime example is when Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, on7th January 2025, gave a statement asserting less intervention into what peoplefind on its social media platforms as the new “best practice”. While lessinterference would have worked in a generation that merely operated on thediffering, dissenting, and raw ideas bred by the minds of differentindividuals, it is not the case for this day and age. There has been asignificant rise in cases where social media platforms have been used as abattleground for disputes, spreading communal violence, misinformation, anddisinformation.

Thereis no debate about the fact that social media platforms have fostered a globalexpression, making the world a global village, bringing everyone together. Onthe other hand, the platforms have become the epicentre of computer-basedcrimes, where children and teenagers often become prey to these crimes,cyberbullying, and cyberstalking.  

Rising Importance of Platform Accountability

Themost pertinent question that is to be asked with a conscious mind is whether anunregulated media is a reflection of Freedom of Speech, a right given to us byour constitution under Article. 19(1)(a), or whether free speech is just a garbby big stakeholders, and we are all victims of an impending infodemic andvictims of AI algorithms, because, as per the reports that surfaced during theCovid-19 pandemic, India saw a dramatic 214% rise in false information. Anotherreport by the UNESCO-Ipsos survey revealed that 85% of Indian respondentsencounter online hate speech, with around 64% pointing to social media as aprimary source.

While the focus on platform accountability is critical, it is equally important to recognise that the right to free speech is not absolute. Therefore, users also bear a constitutional responsibility while exercising this right. Free expression in a democratic society must be accompanied by civic digital behaviour, which includes refraining from spreading hate speech, misinformation, or engaging in harmful conduct online. The most recent example of this is the case of Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs. UOI (popularly known as “Latent Case”); the court came down heavily on the hosts and makers of the show and made its position crystal clear by stating, “there is nothinglike a fundamental right on platter...the fundamental rights are all followedby a duty...unless those people understand duty, there is no [...] deal withthat kind of elements...if somebody wants to enjoy fundamental rights, thiscountry gives a guarantee to enjoy, but guarantee is with a duty so thatguarantee will involve performing that duty also” .

The Way Forward: CyberPeace Suggests

In order to realise the benefits and derive the true benefits from the rights we are provided, especially the one in discussion, i.e., Freedom of Speech and Expression, the government and the designated intermediaries and regulators have to prepare both roadmaps, one for “Platform Accountability” and one for "User Accountability”, wherein the regulators with a reasonable foresight should conduct Algorithm Risk Audits which is a technique to make algorithms and there effects on content feeds visible. It can be an effective tool and an objective manner to compare how algorithms are automatically pushing different content to different users in an unfair or unbalanced way. As for user accountability, “Digital Literacy” is the way forward, ensuring that social media remains a marketplace of ideas and does not become a minefield of misfires.

Introduction 

Governments worldwide are enacting cybersecurity laws to enhance resilience and secure cyberspace against growing threats like data breaches, cyber espionage,  and state-sponsored attacks in the digital landscape. As a response, the EU Council has been working on adopting new laws and regulations under its EU Cybersecurity Package- a framework to enhance cybersecurity capacities across the EU to protect critical infrastructure, businesses, and citizens. Recently, the Cyber Solidarity Act was adopted by the Council, which aims to improve coordination among EU member states for increased cyber resilience. Since regulations in the EU play a significant role in shaping the global regulatory environment, it is important to keep an eye on such developments.

Overview of the Cyber Solidarity Act 

The Act sets up a European Cyber Security Alert System consisting of Cross-Border Cyber Hubs across Europe to collect intelligence and act on cyber threats by leveraging emerging technology such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced data analytics to share warnings on cyber threats with other cyber data centres across the national borders of the EU. This is expected to assist authorities in responding to cyber threats and incidents more quickly and effectively. 

Further, it provides for the creation of a new Cybersecurity Emergency Mechanism to enhance incident response systems in the EU.  This will include testing the vulnerabilities in critical sectors like transport, energy, healthcare, finance, etc., and creating a reserve of private parties to provide mutual technical assistance for incident response requests from EU member-states or associated third countries of the Digital Europe Programme in case of a large-scale incident.  

Finally, it also provides for the establishment of a European Cybersecurity Incident Review Mechanism to monitor the impact of the measures under this law. 

Key Themes

1. Greater Integration: The success of this Act depends on the quality of cooperation and interoperability between various governmental stakeholders across defence, diplomacy, etc. with regard to data formats, taxonomy, data handling and data analytics tools. For example, Cross-Border Cyber Hubs are mandated to take the interoperability guidelines set by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) as a starting point for information-sharing principles with each other.  
2. Public-Private Collaboration: The Act provides a framework to govern relationships between stakeholders such as the public sector, the private sector, academia, civil society and the media, identifying that public-private collaboration is crucial for strengthing EUs cyber resilience. In this regard, National Cyber Hubs are proposed to carry out the strengthening of information sharing between public and private entities.  
3. Centralized Regulation: The Act aims to strengthen all of the EU's cyber solidarity by outlining dedicated infrastructure for improved coordination and intelligence-sharing regarding cyber events among member states. Equal matching contribution for procuring the tools, infrastructure and services is to be made by each selected member state and the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre, a body tasked with funding cybersecurity projects in the EU. 
4. Setting a Global Standard: The underlying rationale behind strengthening cybersecurity in the EU is not just to protect EU citizens from cyber-threats to their fundamental rights but also to drive norms for world-class standards for cybersecurity for essential and critical services, an initiative several countries rely on.

Conclusion

In the current digital landscape, governments, businesses, critical sectors and people are increasingly interconnected through information and network connection systems and are using emerging technologies like AI, exposing them to multidimensional vulnerabilities in cyberspace. The EU in this regard continues to be a leader in setting standards for the safety of participants in the digital arena through regulations regarding cybersecurity. The Cyber Solidarity Act’s design including cross-border cooperation, public-private collaboration, and proactive incident-monitoring and response sets a precedent for a unified approach to cybersecurity. As the EU’s Cybersecurity Package continues to evolve, it will play a crucial role in ensuring a secure and resilient digital future for all. 

Sources

• https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/12/02/cybersecurity-package-council-adopts-new-laws-to-strengthen-cybersecurity-capacities-in-the-eu/ 
• https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-94-2024-INIT/en/pdf 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity-strategy 
• https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/cybersecurity-regulation-changes-nis2-eu-2024/

Introduction

The Data Security Council of India’s India Cyber Threat Report 2025 calculates that a staggering 702 potential attacks happened per minute on average in the country in 2024.  Recent alleged data breaches on organisations such as Star Health, WazirX, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), BSNL, etc. highlight the vulnerabilities of government organisations, critical industries, businesses, and individuals in managing their digital assets. India is the second most targeted country for cyber attacks globally, which warrants the development and adoption of cybersecurity governance frameworks essential for the structured management of cyber environments. The following global models offer valuable insights and lessons that can help strengthen cybersecurity governance.

Overview of Global Cybersecurity Governance Models 

Cybersecurity governance frameworks provide a structured strategy to mitigate and address cyber threats. Different regions have developed their own governance models for cybersecurity, but they all emphasize risk management, compliance, and cross-sector collaboration for the protection of digital assets. Four such major models are: 

1. NIST CSF 2.0 (U.S.A): The National Institute of Standards and Technology Cyber Security Framework provides a flexible, voluntary, risk-based approach rather than a one-size-fits-all solution to manage cybersecurity risks. It endorses six core functions, which are:  Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. This is a widely adopted framework used by both public and private sector organizations even outside the U.S.A. 
2. ISO/IEC 27001: This is a globally recognized standard developed jointly by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). It provides a risk-based approach to help organizations of all sizes and types to identify, assess, and mitigate potential cybersecurity threats to Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) and preserve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information.  Organizations can seek ISO 27001 certification to demonstrate compliance with laws and regulations.
3. EU NIS2 Directive: The Network and Information Security Directive 2 (NIS2) is an updated EU cybersecurity law that imposes strict obligations on critical services providers in four overarching areas: risk management, corporate accountability, reporting obligations, and business continuity. It is the most comprehensive cybersecurity directive in the EU to date, and non-compliance may attract non-monetary remedies, administrative fines up to at least €10 million or 2% of the global annual revenue (whichever is higher), or even criminal sanctions for top managers. 
4. GDPR: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)of the EU is a comprehensive data privacy law that also has major cybersecurity implications. It mandates that organizations must integrate cybersecurity into their data protection policies and report breaches within 72 hours, and it prescribes a fine of up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover for non-compliance. 

India’s Cybersecurity Governance Landscape 

In light of the growing nature of cyber threats, it is notable that the Indian government has taken comprehensive measures along with efforts by relevant agencies such as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), National Payments Corporation (NPCI) and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), CERT-In. However, there is still a lack of an overarching cybersecurity governance framework or comprehensive law in this area. Multiple regulatory bodies in India oversee cybersecurity for various sectors. Key mechanisms are: 

1. CERT-In Guidelines: The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), is the nodal agency responsible for cybersecurity incident response, threat intelligence sharing, and capacity building. Organizations are mandated to maintain logs for 180 days and report cyber incidents to CERT-In within six hours of noticing them according to directions under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
2. IT Act & DPDP Act: These Acts, along with their associated rules, lay down the legal framework for the protection of ICT systems in India.  While some sections mandate that “reasonable” cybersecurity standards be followed, specifics are left to the discretion of the organisations. Enforcement frameworks are vague, which leaves sectoral regulators to fill the gaps. 
3. Sectoral regulations: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), the Department of Telecommunications, the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) and other regulatory bodies require that cybersecurity standards be maintained by their regulated entities. 

Lessons for India & Way Forward 

As the world faces unprecedented security and privacy threats to its digital ecosystem, the need for more comprehensive cybersecurity policies, awareness, and capacity building has perhaps never been greater. While cybersecurity practices may vary with the size, nature, and complexity of an organization (hence “reasonableness” informing measures taken), there is a need for a centralized governance framework in India similar to NIST2 to unify sectoral requirements for simplified compliance and improve enforcement. India ranks 10th on the World Cybercrime Index and was found to be "specialising" in scams and mid-tech crimes- those which affect mid-range businesses and individuals the most. To protect them, India needs to strengthen its enforcement mechanisms across more than just the critical sectors. This can be explored by penalizing bigger organizations handling user data susceptible to breaches more stringently, creating an enabling environment for strong cybersecurity practices through incentives for MSMEs, and investing in cybersecurity workforce training and capacity building. Finally,  there is a scope for increased public-private collaboration for real-time cyber intelligence sharing.  Thus, a unified, risk-based national cybersecurity governance framework encompassing the current multi-pronged cybersecurity landscape would give direction to siloed efforts. It would help standardize best practices, streamline compliance, and strengthen overall cybersecurity resilience across all sectors in India.
‍

References

• https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/635e632477408d12d1811a64/676e56ee4cc30a320aecf231_Cloudsek%20Annual%20Threat%20Landscape%20Report%202024%20(1).pdf 
• https://strobes.co/blog/top-data-breaches-in-2024-month-wise/#:~:text=In%20a%20large%2Dscale%20data,emails%2C%20and%20even%20identity%20theft. 
• https://www.google.com/search?q=nist+2.0&oq=nist+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggBEEUYOzIHCAAQABiPAjIGCAEQRRg7MgYIAhBFGDsyCggDEAAYsQMYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBwgFEAAYgAQyBwgGEAAYgAQyBggHEEUYPNIBCDE2MTJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 
• https://www.iso.org/standard/27001
• https://nis2directive.eu/nis2-requirements/ 
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/india-ranks-number-10-in-cybercrime-study-finds/articleshow/109223208.cms?from=mdr 

‍