New Delhi: A parliamentary panel acknowledging ambiguities surrounding misinformation has sought a clear legal definition of “fake news” for incorporation into the regulatory framework of the print, electronic, and digital media. The definition should maintain the “delicate balance” between curbing false information and protecting freedom of speech.
Headed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, the Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology (IT) submitted a report in the Parliament on Tuesday—‘Review of Mechanism to Curb Fake News’.
Besides the legal interpretation, the parliamentary committee recommends revisiting the ‘Safe Harbour’ clause under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, citing concerns of social media exploiting immunity while algorithms amplify fake news.
The ‘Safe Harbour’ clause protects intermediaries, such as social media platforms and messaging apps, from liability for content posted by users, but provided they follow certain due diligence and take action when notified about unlawful content.
The report comes as the government strengthens efforts against fake news through the Fact Check Unit run by its communication arm, the Press Information Bureau (PIB). Between 2 April 2020 and 30 April 2025, PIB received 1,63,597 queries, acted on 53,155, and debunked 2,279 fake news.
According to the Nishikant Dubey-led panel’s report, stakeholders, including various news organisations, the Press Council of India (PCI), and government representatives, have stressed that clearly defining “Fake News” is “essential for effective regulation”. They have also noted that the term did not have uniform, globally accepted definitions, and multiple interpretations make it challenging to define and identify.
Stakeholders proposed ‘Fake News’ should include content wholly or partly false, disguised as real news to manipulate public opinion, and deliberately fabricated to mislead or harm.
The committee agreed that ‘fake news’ per se had to be defined, but subtly, incorporating rules for media platforms in this regard, albeit “protecting freedom of speech and individual rights” guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the panel emphasised that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) consult stakeholders to arrive at a definition.
Revisiting ‘safe harbour’
According to the Nishikant Dubey-led panel, the members examined concerns regarding the ‘Safe Harbour’ clause under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.
The section exempts intermediaries from liability for third-party content— subject to safeguards. It states that stakeholders highlight that the revenue models of social media platforms often favour sensational and potentially fake content, which algorithms amplify, increasing the virality of misinformation.
“Algorithms driving digital platforms prioritise content that maximises engagement, inciting strong reactions, and thereby defining the revenue for the platform,” the committee stated in its report.
The Nishikant Dubey-led committee emphasised revisiting ‘Safe Harbour’ to enhance intermediary accountability, recommending transparency in algorithms, stricter fines for repeat offenders, and the establishment of an independent regulatory body.
It urged the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to coordinate with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and other stakeholders to address issues with ‘Big Tech’, intermediaries, and content creators. It advised exploring ‘Safe Harbour’ reforms and appointing a dedicated nodal officer in India to oversee ‘Big Tech’ companies.
Also Read: 17% drop in new international students in US in fall 2025, Indians remain largest cohort: Open Doors
AI, interministerial coordination
The Nishikant Dubey-led parliamentary panel highlighted the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to address the spread of fake news but cautioned that AI alone cannot replace human oversight.
“AI could be used to flag potentially fake news/misleading content for review by human intervention as a second layer of monitoring.”
Its report also stated that stakeholders acknowledged AI’s ability to detect deepfakes, verify images and videos, and identify misinformation networks, but warned that the same technology could be misused to create fake content.
The report further suggested “inter-ministerial coordination for exploring the feasibility of Licensing requirements for AI content creators and mandatory labelling of AI-generated videos and content.”
Self-regulation & penalties
The Nishikant Dubey-led parliamentary panel emphasised the importance of self-regulation in the media, noting that out of 919 TV channels, 543 are not part of any Self-Regulatory Body (SRB). To make the system of self-regulation effective, all TV channels should be brought under the SRB umbrella, it said.
The panel recommended that fact-checking mechanisms and internal ombudsmen be made mandatory across print, digital, and electronic media, stating, “having a fact-checking mechanism and internal Ombudsman in almost all media organisations will go a long way in strengthening the role of the Self Regulatory mechanism and checking the menace of misinformation/Fake News”.
It recommended setting time-bound PCI complaint resolution, creating a unified digital grievance portal, and adopting global best practices, such as dedicated helplines, among others. A PCI complaint is a charge of violation of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard.
Moreover, the parliamentary panel recommended increasing fines when the flow of fake news continues. It highlighted that there is a graded penalty system for different forms of media, ranging from a mild warning to levying fines, going up to Rs 25 lakh and license revocation. According to the committee, the “amount of fine can be increased to make it deterrent enough for creators/publishers of fake news”, the report stated.
It further said that there was also a need to amend the penal provisions for publishing/telecasting Fake News in the relevant Act/Rules/Guidelines for each form of Media (print, Electronic, Digital). “The Ministry may explore the feasibility of cancelling the accreditation of a journalist/creator who is found guilty of creating and/or propagating ‘Fake News’,” it stated.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Delhi & Jaipur student suicides prompt schools to step up, expose a crisis of care