(1.) A. INTRODUCTION and OVERVIEW :
(2.) The several Petitioners and the Applicant, different voices from different quarters, are united in their complaint about the Central Government's 2023 amendment to a particular Rule under the Information Technology Act. This amendment, they all say, has just one purpose: to muzzle criticism and questioning of the Central Government as it goes about its 'business', to stifle dissent from what the Central Government puts out in regard to affairs of the state. Through this amendment, the Central Government has anointed itself as the sole arbiter of what is or what is not 'fake, false or misleading'. It, and it alone, will decide this, including the entirely ambiguous term 'misleading'; and when it does, dare any 'intermediary' allow such information to continue to be hosted on a social media platform, that intermediary immediately risks losing statutory protection. The entire amendment is overbroad, vague and without controlling guidelines. It does not even provide for an opportunity for the propounder of any information to defend its correctness, and the government becomes a judge in its own cause (hence another dimension of violation of principles of natural justice).
(3.) The impugned Rule is ultra vires the governing parent Act, goes the submission. It purports to do that which the Act itself cannot. No rule by executive action, made under any rule-making power, can either go beyond the statute or do what the statute cannot.