Ethical Dilemmas:

• Freedom vs. Regulation: Balancing the freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with the state’s duty to prevent misinformation.
• Truth vs. Subjectivity: What is “fake” can be subjective in the absence of a clear legal definition.
• Public Order vs. Civil Liberties: Ensuring public harmony without infringing on civil rights.

Deontological Ethics:

• From a Kantian perspective, every individual has an inherent right to express truth as per their conscience. Censorship based on vague laws undermines moral autonomy.
• The duty of the state is to uphold constitutional values, not suppress them.

Utilitarianism:

• If the law prevents harm by reducing communal violence or medical misinformation (e.g., during pandemics), then it may be justified.
• However, the net consequence of suppressing dissent and fear among citizens may lead to long-term harm to democracy.

Virtue Ethics:

• Governance should reflect virtues like justice, temperance, and prudence.
• A virtuous public official would encourage responsible speech, not suppress speech altogether.

Conclusion: Ethics demands precision, proportionality, and transparency—none of which seem to be met in the present form of the bill.

Criminalizing “fake news” in limited and narrowly defined circumstances may be justified—such as in cases of incitement to violence, defamation, or threats to national security—but blanket criminalization is ethically and constitutionally problematic.

Ethical Reasoning:

• The principle of proportionality must apply. Imprisonment up to 7 years for subjective content is excessive.
• The harm principle (John Stuart Mill): Only speech that directly causes harm should be restricted.

Constitutional Values:

• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees free speech.
• Article 19(2): Allows “reasonable restrictions” for public order, decency, etc.
• But the restriction must be reasonable, not vague or arbitrary.

Conclusion:
Rather than criminalizing, the state should promote media literacy, fact-checking mechanisms, and civil penalties. Democratic ethics emphasizes dialogue and dissent, not suppression.

As a public official, the following checks and balances are essential:

1. Independent Oversight Body:
   • A neutral Media Ethics Review Board comprising legal experts, journalists, and civil society.
2. Clear Legal Definition:
   • “Fake news” must be defined objectively and narrowly, with safeguards for opinion and satire.
3. Time-bound Appeals Mechanism:
   • Accused persons should be able to appeal to an independent tribunal within a short period.
4. No Prior Censorship:
   • Only post-publication accountability should be allowed, not prior restraint (Shreya Singhal judgment).
5. Judicial Review of Arrests:
   • All detentions under the law must be subject to judicial oversight.
6. Training for Police and Bureaucrats:
   • On legal limits and ethical handling of cases involving expression.

Conclusion: These safeguards uphold democratic accountability and reduce the risk of political misuse.

Balancing Approach:

1. Minimum Harm Principle:
   • Restrict speech only when it causes tangible harm, like incitement to violence or public panic.
2. Principle of Proportionality:
   • The extent of restriction must be the least necessary to achieve the intended outcome.
3. Public Accountability:
   • All government actions must be transparent and reviewable, ensuring officials are accountable.
4. Right to be Heard:
   • Citizens must be given fair opportunity to defend themselves before any punishment is imposed.
5. Ethical Governance:
   • Administrators must show non-partisanship, empathy, and justice, not coercion or overreach.

Conclusion: Freedom of speech is not absolute, but its restriction must be justified, limited, and based on objective harm, not political convenience.

1. India – Section 66A of the IT Act (Struck down in 2015):

• People were arrested for Facebook posts critical of politicians.
• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the SC struck it down as vague and unconstitutional.
• Lesson: Vague laws on speech lead to misuse and chill free expression.

2. Turkey – Disinformation Law (2022):

• Critics jailed for social media posts deemed “false.”
• International human rights groups criticized it as a tool to suppress dissent.
• Lesson: Overbroad laws become instruments of political control.

3. Germany – NetzDG Law (Handled with Caution):

• Mandated removal of illegal content within 24 hours.
• However, involved judicial oversight and clear criteria.
• Lesson: Effective if implemented with legal clarity and safeguards.

Conclusion: Ambiguity and absence of independent review turn even well-intended laws into threats to democracy.

1. Accountability:

• Lawmakers must be answerable for the impact of laws on civil liberties.
• The drafting process should involve recorded debates, justifications, and public reasoning.

2. Transparency:

• The process should be open to stakeholder consultation—journalists, lawyers, civil society.
• Publish the draft bill for public feedback before finalization.

3. Non-partisanship:

• Laws affecting speech must not target opposition voices or favor ruling parties.
• Decision-making should be data-driven, not politically motivated.

4. Justice:

• The law must ensure no arbitrary punishment, and justice must be accessible and quick.
• Protects both the individual’s dignity and the societal need for truth.

Conclusion: These values ensure laws are fair, balanced, and democratic, not coercive.