The Supreme Court has revived the Union government's appeal against a Bombay high court judgment that struck down the Centre's attempt to establish a Fact-Checking Unit under the 2021 IT Rules. The restoration came after the government informed the court of its decision to pursue judicial remedies. The appeal had been dismissed earlier due to uncured procedural defects.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday restored the Union government's special leave petition (SLP) to its original number, challenging the Bombay high court's September 2024 judgment. That ruling had declared unconstitutional Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
A single bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi considered the Centre's restoration application and allowed IA No. 314593/2025 for condonation of delay. The court stated, “IA No. 314593/2025 for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration is allowed…IA No. 314591/2025 seeking restoration is allowed…The special leave petition (SLP) is restored to its original number.”
The Centre filed the petition on December 24, 2024, but it was dismissed in June 2025 on the administrative side after failing to cure defects flagged by the registry by the April 25, 2025 deadline. In its restoration plea, the government explained that the delay stemmed from internal deliberations on whether to address the high court's issues without judicial recourse, involving views from various authorities. The Centre argued the lapse was inadvertent and its right under Article 136 of the Constitution should not be nullified.
The dispute revolves around the 2023 amendment to the rules, empowering the Centre to notify a fact-check unit to identify “fake or false or misleading” information regarding government business. In March 2024, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check Unit, but the Supreme Court stayed it. The Bombay high court delivered a split verdict in January 2024, with the third judge in September 2024 ruling the amendment unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, and allowing the government to act as arbiter in its own cause, creating a chilling effect on intermediaries.
The government contends the rule targets only intentional misinformation, not criticism or satire, and requires intermediaries to make reasonable efforts on flagged content.
