The petitioners concluded their arguments in April, largely contending that the FCUs are meant to bring in total State censorship on anything the government does not want people discussing. They have also argued that there in no provision for the FCUs to fulfil their purported intent of keeping the citizens informed.
The Central government argued that the FCUs do not intend to curb criticism, satire, fun or even an insult, but are limited to only governmental business.
“The impugned rule applies only in context of information which finds its place in official files of the government of India under business rules,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated.
Responding to the argument that Rule 3 would have a chilling effect on free speech, Mehta stated,
“If there is chilling effect for fake and false news, it should be a chilling effect…Everyone should be warned they can’t put fake or false news.”
His argument was that there is no chilling effect, as the government will not be the final arbiter. He explained that the first arbiter would be the intermediary and the final one will be a court.
He further argued that the right to have correct information is also a fundamental right of the recipient of news.
Source: Barandbench
