Facts:
In this case, the petitioners were advocates who were practicing in the Supreme Court and filed writ petitions. The case is alarmed with fake news related to the national wide lockdown for more than three months due to coronavirus and it resulted in the migration of laborers with their families by covering the distance from workplace to their villages/towns by walking. The prevailing migration was not just frightening the health of the migrants in that situation but was also discouraging the efforts of the government to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
Both the writ petitions were taken together and the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Government on 30th March 2020 and directed Mr. Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General to issue a report of measures taken by the Central Government to curb the spread of the coronavirus.
On 31st March 2020, the Central Government issued a report which highlighted various measures taken to control the spread of the coronavirus and this report also emphasized the fake news which was increasing terror in the minds of laborers and also stated that careless fake news is the only hindrance in monitoring this challenge. The report also stated the advisory delivered by the Central Government on 24th March 2020 which advised intermediaries like news channels, newspapers, etc. to encourage the broadcasting of truthful information and curb the spread of fake news.
The report sought an order from the Court that no one can publish any news without prior determination of factual position from the Central Government.
Issue:
The issues of the case are as follow:
· Whether these writ petitions filed by the advocated maintainable under Article 32?
· Did the fake news influence the laborers to migrate?
· Is Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 reasonable in this case?
· Whether there was noncompliance to instruction propagated by public servants provided under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Rule:
Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005
“Provides for punishment to a person who makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic. Such person shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine.”
Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant.—Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
Analysis:
The main issue before the court was to prevent the spread of fake news, whether intending or not, either by social media or printed material which will affect the society and the other issue was to ensure the basic amenities of the migrant laborers were met while preserving public safety from the virus.
The court considered the report issued by the Solicitor General and the methods of the Central Government to decide that suitable steps had been taken to prevent the spread of the coronavirus and care for the migrant laborers. And about fake news, it accepted that the migration or laborers were a consequence of fake news as the news was about lockdown that it may continue for more than 3 months. The court cited the statement of the Director-General of the World Health Organization who stated that “We are not just fighting an epidemic; we are fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.” Considering the "untold affliction" of the migrant laborers and the loss of lives in light of the pandemic, the Court discovered it proved unable to "neglect this menace of fake news."
And according to the rule of law, the court made a note of Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 under which scattering of false information to spread fright was punished. The Court additionally focused on that advisory given by the Government established 'orders' under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, and thus consistency by all significant parties was expected in light of an interesting concern for Public Safety. The Court emphasized that it believed that areas of the media would act mindfully and not publish unconfirmed news capable of the spread of panic in the country.
The Court guided the Government to give everyday bulletins concerning the official variant of occasions and asked media experts to allude to and publish these turns of events, which may improve access to information. It likewise explained that it didn't plan to curb free press and discussion concerning the Coronavirus.
Notwithstanding, the Court acknowledged the Government's stand that the large-scale migration was because of fake news. It emphasized the Government's advisory concerning fake news and discovering it to be like an order, disobedience of which has penal results under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the provision disallowance broadcasting of false information, fit for causing panic under the Disaster Management Act.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ordered the Central Government within 24 hours to issue regular bulletins clarifying the up-to-date development on the COVID-19 pandemic and advised the media to allude to and circulate the authorized variants of occasions. The Government claimed that the migration was the consequence of fake news, and the Government sought an order from the Court that no electronic/print media or social media would publish any news related to the pandemic without prior discovering its factual position from the Central Government and would act responsibly.
Article by - Sanket
Content writer
Legal Insight
Comments