Karnataka Government’s New Anti-Fake News Law: Proposing 7-Year Jail Term and ₹10 Lakh Fine for Offenders

A Strong Hand Against Misinformation

Karnataka’s government is also taking an ambitious step with a new law in dealing with the increasing issue of fake news and misinformation, particularly on social media. The bill dubbed the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, is expected to enforce stringent punishment on individuals found guilty of offences such as imprisonment not exceeding seven years or a maximum fine of 10 lakh rupees (approximately US$12000). The action anticipates the increase in anxiety by the state authorities about the adverse effects of fake news on the state’s order and social harmony as well as on the democratic process.

The draft bill, under which the state body worked approximately two years ago, is now waiting to be discussed and approved by the state cabinet and may be presented during the next session of the assembly. In case the legislature adopts it, Karnataka would be one of the Indian states that has the strictest and most effective anti-falsehood laws on the Internet.

What the proposed law would provide:

Various penalties are provided for various categories of offense in the bill. People convicted of disseminating fake news, which includes citing misrepresentation, taping and video editing to misrepresent or creating fake news altogether, would be imprisoned for up to seven years and fined up to 10 lakh rupees. In the case of people spreading what they describe as misinformation (expressing a false statement when they know or are reckless as to whether such a statement is false, wherein the statement can endanger the health and safety of people, their peace or the outcome of elections), the jail term would be at least two to maximum five years in addition to fines. Notably such crimes would be cognisable and non-bailable aka one can be arrested without a warrant by the police and there would be no right to bail.

In addition to individuals, the proposed law will also be used against companies and social media platforms, with the view to making them responsible for the kind of content posted on their platforms. The bill provides that action can be brought not only on behalf of the organization but also against directors and employees that were present at the moment of the violation, even though the division of liability in corporate structures has been extended.

New Special Courts and a Special Authority to regulate.

Another interesting aspect of the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, is that it sets up a strong new six-member Social Media Regulatory Authority. This cabinet would see to it that the content on all media is being checked and they would also have the power to ban or limit the promotion and dissemination of fake news. It will not only be allowed to censor factual inaccuracies, but also empowered to ban content that is deemed insulting to women, disrespectful to the symbols or beliefs of Sanatana Dharma, or material that encourages superstition as well. The authority will also make sure that content in the fields of science, history, religion, philosophy and literature found on social media sources is on the basis of real investigation.

The bill make an offer to the establishment of special courts so that the trial and enforcement can be faster and even this needs to be established in agreement with the Karnataka High Court. Under these special courts, Sessions Judges would hold one or more of the districts in their jurisdiction. They would be authorized to provide “Correction Directions” to offset misinformation and Disable Directions to access the offending material. Compliance with these court directions is not complied with, further simple imprisonment up to two years and an amount of 25,000 results on a daily basis with a maximum of 25 lakh may also occur.

Controversy and Problems: Striking the balance between freedom of speech

Although the Karnataka government has said that there is a necessity to rein in the circulation of fake news that may cause threats to individuals and problems with law and order, the proposed law has received major controversy, especially from digital rights organizations and those in the legal fraternity. The granularity of the definitions of fake news and misinformation has been disparaged and the authority bestowed on the government-led regulatory authority.

Opponents say that these broadened powers run the risk of abuse and result in the District having “partisan or selective enforcement” and the stifling of free speech and opposition to authority. They refer to previous efforts when ambiguously formulated statutes addressing online material have been and were overturned by appellate courts as offenses against the basic constitution. There has also been an indication of the absence of public consultations in the entire draft bill as an issue.

Other rights advocacy organizations such as the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) have called upon the Karnataka government to relegate the criminal sanctions in favor of well-tailored rights-respecting civil or administrative measures, where their primary concern focuses on expectations of the form of transparency and their correction, as well as, due process of the platforms. To them, the attempt to ensure an increase in free inquiry and dissent should be expanded and not diminished by a democratic approach to the liabilities created by misconstructions.

The wider picture

Misinformation and the spread of false news have become such a universal problem that governments across the world are struggling to find a way to. The governments of India (both at the central level and those of various states) have also discussed or adopted steps to combat online falsehoods. Nonetheless, balancing the veil of control over dangerous materials and safeguarding the very right to freedom of expression continues to be a complicated legal and moral situation.

The law that the Karnataka government proposes is a step further in tightening the regulations and punishments that a state government can administer. Its practical application will be keenly followed and its ability to work through the constitutional provisions on free speech will be under focus. The result of this legislative activity may become an example of the future of other Indian states regarding the seemingly more complicated question of controlling what is being spread online in the era of digitalization.