Does India Need a Misinformation Act? A Comparative Look at Global Approaches

 In recent weeks, Indian media has been dominated by the sensationalist coverage of "Operation Sindoor," where mainstream outlets pushed unverified narratives with little accountability. This has reignited debate around the regulation of misinformation in India. The current legal mechanisms appear either outdated, misused, or insufficiently enforced — raising the question: does India need a dedicated Misinformation Act?

India’s Current Legal Framework

India already has several laws that touch on misinformation, but none directly or comprehensively address the modern digital disinformation ecosystem.

The Indian Penal Code includes sections like 153, 295, and 505, which penalize speech that incites violence, promotes religious enmity, or causes public mischief. While useful in some contexts, these laws are often vague and open to misuse. For instance, criticism of the government is sometimes labeled as “hate speech,” which stifles free expression rather than curbing falsehoods.

The Information Technology Act was meant to govern digital activity, but its infamous Section 66A — used to arrest individuals for “offensive” posts — was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 for violating free speech. Alarmingly, reports show that police across India have continued using this defunct section, illustrating a dangerous legal vacuum and lack of awareness.

The IT Rules of 2021 (amended in 2023) require social media companies to remove any content flagged as “fake news” by the government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB). This essentially gives the government the unilateral power to decide what is true and what is false, with no independent review or appeals mechanism. Such power in the hands of any ruling party — irrespective of ideology — poses grave threats to press freedom and democratic discourse.

There are also provisions under the Representation of the People Act, which penalizes the spread of false information about political candidates, but enforcement is rare and the scope is limited to electoral contexts. Similarly, the Disaster Management Act was temporarily used during COVID-19 to penalize pandemic-related misinformation, but this was more reactive than systemic.

Risks of a Misinformation Act

While the demand for a dedicated Misinformation Act is growing, such legislation is not without significant risks:

1. Censorship and Government Overreach: The biggest danger is that a Misinformation Act could be weaponized to silence dissent. If the government becomes the sole arbiter of truth, even legitimate criticism or investigative journalism can be labeled "fake news" and suppressed.

2. Suppression of Marginalized Voices: Minority groups, activists, and opposition parties already face disproportionate scrutiny. A vague or overbroad law could deepen this imbalance, where power is used to erase inconvenient truths rather than combat actual falsehoods.

3. Judicial Backlogs and Inefficiency: Even with an appeals process, India’s overburdened judiciary may not be able to provide timely recourse. This could lead to prolonged, unjust takedowns of truthful content — effectively silencing voices when they are most needed.

4. Self-Censorship by Media and Citizens: If penalties are harsh and definitions are unclear, news organizations and social media users may begin to censor themselves preemptively. This chilling effect can erode democratic discourse and public debate.

5. Misuse by Non-State Actors: A poorly drafted law could be exploited not just by the state, but by private entities and troll networks. They could file false complaints to harass journalists, rivals, or activists under the pretense of fighting misinformation.

6. Stifling Innovation: Startups in the information, content, or social media space may find compliance too burdensome. This would favor big tech companies with legal teams and further concentrate control over digital communication.

Lessons from Other Countries

A look at international examples offers insight into how India could structure a balanced Misinformation Act.

Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) compels large digital platforms to remove illegal content — like hate speech and incitement — within 24 hours, or face heavy fines. However, the definitions of what constitutes illegal content are derived from existing German law, not arbitrary government claims. Although critics warn that this law leads to over-censorship by platforms, Germany’s strong judicial oversight acts as a check on government overreach.

The United States offers a contrasting approach. Its First Amendment protects nearly all speech, including misinformation, unless it causes direct harm (like libel or incitement to violence). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, allowing them to moderate without fear of lawsuits. However, this hands-off approach has allowed the unchecked spread of conspiracy theories and disinformation — from election denial to vaccine falsehoods — highlighting the risks of under-regulation.

Singapore takes a stricter stance through its Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which allows government ministries to issue correction or takedown orders against online misinformation. While there is a formal appeals process through the courts, critics argue that it is slow, rarely successful, and often used against opposition figures, raising concerns about authoritarian misuse.

What Should India Do?

India urgently needs a legal framework tailored to its unique socio-political context and media landscape. But such a law must balance the need to curb harmful disinformation with the constitutional right to free speech.

A robust Misinformation Act should incorporate the following principles:

1. Independent Oversight: Truth should not be dictated by the government alone. An independent misinformation review board — composed of retired judges, media experts, and civil society members — should oversee decisions about what constitutes misinformation.

2. Appeals Process: Any takedown or correction order must be subject to appeal in a time-bound judicial framework. This would prevent arbitrary censorship and build trust among citizens and platforms.

3. Transparency and Reporting: Platforms and government agencies must publish regular transparency reports, listing the number and type of misinformation takedowns requested and executed.

4. Public-Private Cooperation: Rather than controlling platforms, the government should partner with fact-checking organizations, academia, and tech companies to build a resilient information ecosystem.

5. Digital and Media Literacy: Education remains the most sustainable solution. A national curriculum on digital literacy — covering how to detect fake news, verify sources, and identify manipulated media — should be introduced in schools and public service training.

Conclusion

India sits at a critical crossroads. As digital access deepens, so does the reach of misinformation — threatening social cohesion, public health, and democratic integrity. The current legal patchwork is inadequate and often misapplied. However, any attempt to legislate against fake news must not become a tool for authoritarian control. A carefully drafted Misinformation Act, with independent checks and transparency at its core, could be the way forward — but only if the risks of abuse, overreach, and suppression are addressed head-on.

Misdirection by Godi Media: How India’s Lapdog Press Skews the Narrative

 

Misdirection by Godi Media: How India’s Lapdog Press Skews the Narrative

In India, the term “Godi Media” — coined by NDTV journalist Ravish Kumar — has become shorthand for news outlets accused of sitting in the lap of power, particularly the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Literally meaning “lap media,” it’s a biting critique of a press that’s traded its watchdog role for one of a loyal lapdog. But beyond bias, Godi Media’s real sleight of hand lies in misdirection — flooding airwaves and headlines with noise to drown out what matters. From sensationalist distractions to burying inconvenient truths, this orchestrated chaos keeps the public looking the wrong way. Let’s dive into how it works, with some hard numbers to back it up.

The Art of Distraction

Picture this: in September 2024, as the rupee hit a historic low of 83.99 against the dollar and the stock market saw a brutal crash — wiping out ₹10 lakh crore in investor wealth in a single day — prime-time TV was busy elsewhere. A post on X highlighted a telling pattern from ANI, a major news agency often linked to Godi Media: 127 tweets on fake laddu controversies, 432 on comedian Samay Raina’s latest spat, and just one on the rupee’s plunge. The stock market crash? Also one tweet. Meanwhile, a stampede at Delhi’s Anand Vihar station killed 30 people — barely a blip on the radar with one mention.

This isn’t random. It’s a playbook. When economic distress or governance failures loom large, Godi Media pivots to trivia — celebrity weddings, temple disputes, or manufactured outrage. In 2020, during the peak of the COVID-19 crisis, as migrant workers trekked hundreds of kilometers amid a botched lockdown, channels like Republic TV and Zee News fixated on actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death. For weeks, conspiracy theories about “gaming jihad” or “love jihad” dominated, while oxygen shortages and mass cremations got sidelined. The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) later fined outlets like Sudarshan News for Islamophobic rants, but the damage was done — attention diverted, accountability dodged.

Cooking the Numbers

Misdirection isn’t just about what’s covered; it’s about what’s twisted. Take the BJP’s economic claims. In 2019, PM Narendra Modi boasted of attracting $130 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) since 2014. Fact-checks later pegged it at $101.72 billion — impressive, but a far cry from the hype. Godi Media ran with the inflated figure, rarely correcting the record. Similarly, the claim of “95% rural electrification” by 2018 was trumpeted loudly — until data showed it counted a village as “electrified” if just 10% of its homes had power. The real story? Millions still in the dark, but the narrative had already moved on.

During the 2024 elections, exit polls on channels like India Today and Times Now predicted a BJP landslide — some claiming over 400 seats for the NDA. The reality? 293 seats, a sharp drop from 353 in 2019. Political strategist Yogendra Yadav, on BBC Hindi, called it “crowd manipulation” by Godi Media, arguing that honest reporting might’ve seen the BJP dip below 200. The inflated polls weren’t just wrong — they shaped perceptions, muting dissent until the ballots proved otherwise.

The Farmer Protests: A Case Study

The 2020–2021 farmer protests are a masterclass in misdirection. Over 700 farmers died during the year-long agitation against three farm laws, facing barricades, water cannons, and even a minister’s son mowing down protesters. Godi Media’s response? Label them “Khalistani terrorists” or “greedy middlemen.” A Supreme Court panel later found 84% of farmer organizations supported the laws’ intent — but that nuance never made the headlines. Instead, channels like Aaj Tak and Republic Bharat spun tales of foreign conspiracies, while nails on roads and bloodied heads were brushed off as “necessary measures.” The laws were repealed, but not before Godi Media had shifted focus to the next shiny object.

Why It Works — and Who Pays?

This isn’t chaos by accident. Media houses rake in big bucks from government ads — ₹6,491 crore over eight years (2014–2022), per RTI data cited on X. Corporate ownership amplifies the tilt: Reliance Industries owns CNN-News18, while The Times Group runs Times Now. When ad revenue and political favor align, truth becomes negotiable. A 2023 study of six listed news companies showed their revenues stagnated (₹6,325 crore in 2014 to ₹6,691 crore in 2023), yet profits tanked from ₹761 crore to ₹254 crore. Adjusted for inflation, they’ve shrunk — suggesting propaganda doesn’t even pay well. So why persist? Power, not profit, seems the prize.

India’s press freedom rank reflects the toll: 150th out of 180 in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, down from 142nd in 2019. Reporters Without Borders notes a “concerted effort to control discourse,” with self-censorship and harassment silencing dissent. Godi Media doesn’t just misdirect — it erodes trust. During the farmer protests, reporters from these outlets were chased off sites, a rare rebuke from a public fed up with spin.

Seeing Through the Smoke

Misdirection thrives in noise, but it’s not invincible. The rise of independent outlets like The Wire or Scroll.in, alongside citizen media on X, offers a counterpoint — raw, unfiltered, and closer to the ground. Yet, the average viewer, scrolling past 432 tweets on a comedian’s gaffe, might miss them. The fix isn’t easy: media literacy, like FactShala’s grassroots efforts, helps, but it’s a slow burn against a firehose of distortion.

Godi Media’s game is simple — keep us distracted, divided, and doubting. The rupee falls, the market bleeds, the dead pile up, but look over here: a laddu scandal! It’s misdirection with a body count, and the longer we fall for it, the harder it gets to see what’s really at stake. Time to change the channel.