Karnataka’s Fake News Bill: Why is a Congress government bent on passing a new Rowlatt Act?

Narrowing the space for freedom

Apart from the obvious and necessary critique that this Bill has already received, my commentary focuses more on the preference for strict authority and limited personal freedom in Indian society, which is now inflected systematically through the use of policy-making tools. Both the major Indian political parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Indian National Congress, are guilty of using policies to serve ideological interests. Both fear a digital sphere they can neither predict nor fully control.

Unlike traditional media, social-media platforms cannot be easily controlled by merely regulating well-known broadcasters, producers, or media personalities who are already in the public eye. Moreover, despite previous and ongoing efforts by state and national governments to enforce regulatory conditions on social-media platforms for political, ethical, and moral reasons, the algorithmic curation of digital content underscores the inability of these platforms to effectively implement bans — whether on outright posting or on the initial distribution — within and beyond the digital infrastructures that these businesses control. The speed, scale, and decentralisation of digital platforms render old models of censorship ineffective.

The state’s response to this situation cannot be stripping constitutional powers of the everyday citizens through legal means. The efforts by various state and national governments in India to control the public’s expressions on the internet is reminiscent of the Rowlatt Act of 1919, imposed by the British Empire in India, which allowed the colonial government to imprison anyone suspected of terrorism without trial and to ban public gatherings, aiming to suppress nationalist movements.
The key difference is that today the strictures are enforced by elected governments who weaponise laws and bills to reshape public opinion and justify bans on digital assembly as necessary to maintain civil order.

This phenomenon is not specific to India alone. In June 2021, Hungary’s government under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán passed laws that ban sharing content with minors that depicts homosexuality or gender change. While framed as protecting children, critics argue these laws curb freedom of expression and are part of broader efforts to control the media and public discourse. In 2025, the Australian government, led by Anthony Albanese, approved a social media law, banning children under 16 from using platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat to protect mental health, sparking global debate over digital rights and youth freedoms.

However, what is distinctive in India’s case is the mobilising of political cadres and the public to carry out violent acts against citizens who do not conform to their viewpoint. Legal framework and mobilised political affiliates and extremists not only regulate digital space but also enact coercive measures — arrests, internet shutdowns, legal intimidation, and vigilante attacks — against individuals and communities that dissent from majoritarian ideology. A study conducted by academics Prashanth Bhatt and Kalyani Chadha in 2022 reveals how Hindu nationalist supporters of the BJP coordinate harassment campaigns on social-media platforms such as Twitter — through tactics like “cancelling” journalists, intimidating foreign reporters, and digitally surveilling media personnel — to bolster state-led censorship and suppress dissenting voices in India.

The Karnataka Bill, even before being passed, has already created conditions that embolden vigilantes. Its mere proposal legitimises intimidation tactics against cultural workers, activists, and civil society groups. Those who raise uncomfortable truths — whether about the Muda land scam or the Waqf land grab — now face threats, not just from the state’s legal machinery but also from its informal enforcers. Like the IT Rules before it, the Karnataka Bill narrows the space for creative freedom and critique — both essential for a vibrant, democratic culture.
India’s rapid descent in global press freedom indices is no coincidence. The 2025 RSF World Press Freedom Index places India at 151 out of 180 countries, marking it as one of the most dangerous places for independent journalism. The report cites increasing censorship, harassment of journalists, politically motivated arrests, and frequent shutdowns of websites and social media platforms. These trends are especially pronounced during moments of heightened political or military tension, such as in Kashmir or Manipur or during conflicts. It is time for India’s political parties to come together for an honest reckoning on the limits of the Constitution, instead of chipping away at constitutional liberties through piecemeal measures.



The writer is assistant professor, Centre for Media Studies and Journalism, University of Groningen, and the author of The New Screen Ecology in India: Digital Transformation of Media