‘Name, Shame Those Spreading Falsehoods, Not Curb Free Speech’: Priyank Kharge On Karnataka’s Proposed Misinformation Bill

Bengaluru: Karnataka’s Minister for IT/BT, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Priyank Kharge, announced that the state government will soon introduce a Disinformation Bill aimed at tackling the spread of fake news, misinformation, and malicious online content. Speaking at the Policy Dialogue – Truth, Trust & Technology, jointly organised by Ikigai Law and the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) in Bengaluru, Kharge said the proposed law is intended to hold accountable both individuals and online platforms that amplify falsehoods.

“The threat of misinformation is magnified by technology. With affordable AI tools, anyone can now create deepfake videos, clone voices, or fabricate documents that look real,” Kharge said. “A single click can spark chaos. We want to bring laws that rein in misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and fake news. Platforms that allow such content to spread are also indirectly responsible. All we seek is to bring them under one legal framework.”

Kharge confirmed that the Disinformation Bill is likely to be tabled during the upcoming winter session of the Karnataka Assembly in Belagavi this December. He emphasised that the bill is not meant to restrict freedom of speech or creativity. “We want to name and shame those spreading falsehoods, not curb free expression, satire, or opinion,” he said.

Balancing Regulation And Freedom Of Speech

The event brought together legal scholars, policymakers, and journalists to discuss how India can regulate harmful online speech without compromising constitutional freedoms.

The first panel, “Regulating Speech in Karnataka: A Constitutional Tug of War,” examined the limits of state power in controlling online expression. Speakers noted that any new regulation must align with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, and Article 19(2), which allows only reasonable restrictions. They stressed that new laws must meet the tests of proportionality, necessity, and least-restrictive means.

Advocate Manu Kulkarni, Partner at Poovayya & Co., warned that empowering governments to decide what constitutes truth could be dangerous. “The biggest problem with the current approach is that the government wants to be the arbiter of truth. The central government tried that through a fact-checking unit, which the Bombay High Court struck down. Only those who create actual harm through misinformation should be held accountable. Any wider regulation would strike at the root of democracy,” he said.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Vice Chairman of NLSIU, said the focus should move away from criminal prosecution. “We must introduce liability at both the individual and platform level instead of relying on criminal law,” he said.

Adding to the discussion, Alok Kumar Prasanna, Co-founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, argued that using criminal law to address misinformation is counterproductive. “Criminal action in India starts with arrest and ends with bail. It concentrates power in the hands of the executive and police. The real issue is our education system, which doesn’t teach people to think critically. The hard solution is to build critical thinking, not pass another law,” he said.

Implementation Challenges And Risks For Media

The second panel, “Tackling Misinformation in Practice: Risks, Responsibilities, and Alternatives,” explored whether state authorities can realistically enforce such laws given the scale of online communication and the cross-border nature of digital content.

Dhanya Rajendran, Co-founder of The News Minute, cautioned that while the intent may sound good, the law could be misused against journalists. “After the Congress came to power in Karnataka, three national anchors were booked. If this law is passed, any critical comment could be labelled as misinformation. Journalists, YouTubers, and social media users may end up facing criminal action,” she said.

Siddharth Narrain, Associate Professor at NLSIU, drew parallels with international experiences. “Countries like Singapore, and even parts of Europe and Australia, have tried similar laws, which led to major debates on free speech. The question is who decides what constitutes disinformation. While limiting harmful speech is necessary, the interpretation of disinformation remains a major challenge,” he noted.

What Next?

As Karnataka prepares to table its Disinformation Bill, the discussions highlighted a clear divide between the need to curb harmful misinformation and the risk of overreach. While the government insists that free speech will remain protected, legal experts and journalists remain cautious about how such laws could be implemented without undermining democratic freedoms.

The debate underscored one crucial takeaway: regulating misinformation requires more than just new laws—it needs institutional accountability, media literacy, and a society trained to think critically.