INTRODUCTION
In today’s day and age of digitization and technology, fake news travels faster than the truth. Whether it’s misinformation about public health, current affairs, or political claims, the consequences of false news can be deeply damaging. To understand better, we need to know what exactly fake news is. Fake news is deliberately misleading or false information often presented as genuine news.
Often creating a false sense of trust in the public eye, this news spreads rapidly due to its nature of virality, especially via social media and other platforms. It causes public unrest, misinformation, and may even lead to violence due to divided beliefs. As India witnesses an exponential increase in online content through social media, messaging apps, and unregulated digital news platforms, it becomes necessary to ask: Can the spread of fake news be treated as a cybercrime under Indian law? This blog explores the existing legal framework, identifies gaps, and discusses whether India needs proper legal reforms targeting digital misinformation.[1]
UNDERSTANDING FAKE NEWS IN THE DIGITAL CONTEXT
“Fake news” typically refers to deliberately false or misleading information shared under the guise of legitimate news. Fake news is often spread quickly due to its nature of working according to social media algorithms. These algorithms favour engagement and virality over content accuracy. Online platforms amplify such content due to algorithms that favour engagement over accuracy. The problem becomes more complex when fake news is spread through WhatsApp forwards, YouTube videos, or viral tweets, especially during a time of crisis. There are limited options to restrict these forwards, which makes it an urgent topic of concern. Susceptible people may be harmed because of this misinformation.[2] [3]
LEGAL FRAMEWORK ADDRESSING FAKE NEWS IN INDIA
Indian law doesn’t actually provide a clear, statutory definition of fake news. Even though it’s widely recognized as socially harmful, the legal treatment of fake news—especially in the context of cybercrime—remains unclear and inconsistent.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, a few sections are sometimes applied in cases involving fake news:
- Section 66D[4] deals with cheating by impersonation through digital means. It can be used if someone creates a fake identity to spread misinformation, but it doesn’t apply to fake news in general.
- Section 69A[5] gives the government the power to block access to certain online content. It’s usually invoked in politically sensitive situations to block websites or posts.
- The IT Rules, 2021[6] (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) require platforms like Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook to follow due diligence. They must take down content flagged as false by official fact-checkers or authorities. However, this rule is directed at platforms—not individuals—and doesn’t include criminal penalties for the person who posts fake news.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
As for the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a few provisions are sometimes used:
- Section 505(1)(b)[7] punishes those who make or spread false statements that could cause fear, panic, or public disorder—especially in the context of communal tensions or riots.
- Section 153A[8] can be applied when fake news promotes enmity between different communities or groups, particularly on religious or ethnic grounds.
- Section 124A[9], which covers sedition, has been controversial and is often criticized for being misused to target individuals who post critical content online.
- Section 468[10] addresses forgery done with the intent to cheat, and it might be relevant when fake documents or logos are created as part of a fake news campaign.
Overall, while there are provisions that can be used in certain situations, none of them provide a comprehensive or focused legal approach to tackling fake news.
IS THERE A SPECIFIC OFFENCE OF ‘SPREADING FAKE NEWS’?
No, there isn’t any specific provision in Indian law that directly criminalizes the act of spreading fake news on its own—at least not when it doesn’t fall under existing categories like defamation, incitement to violence, or public disorder. Because of this gap, enforcement tends to be inconsistent. Some people get arrested for spreading fake news, while others don’t face any consequences at all. This also leaves a lot of room for misuse, especially when authorities rely on vague sections of the IPC, like 505 or 124A. Plus, without clear legal guidelines, judges and law enforcement often have to navigate these cases without a proper framework, which makes things even more complicated.[11]
FAKE NEWS AND CYBERCRIME: THE CONNECTION
While fake news often spreads through digital platforms, that doesn’t automatically make it a cybercrime. Cybercrime usually refers to things like hacking, identity theft, or online fraud—essentially crimes that directly target networks, data, or individuals’ digital security, as covered under Section 66 of the IT Act. Fake news can be linked to cybercrime, but it only fits the definition when it involves elements like impersonating someone online, using deepfakes or manipulated content, or spreading misinformation as part of a scam or phishing attempt. In such situations, it could fall under sections like 66C, 66D, 66E, or even 67 of the IT Act[12], which deal with fraud, violation of privacy, or the spread of obscene content.
COMPARATIVE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Let us compare the legal provisions present in some other countries with India. This will help us understand this concept better and help us dig deeper into this problem and how we, as a nation, can combat it by taking inspiration from other countries.
🔹Singapore:
The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)[13] empowers authorities to flag, block, and penalize fake news. It allows the government to issue correction orders and impose fines for fake news. It focuses on political misinformation and public interest.
🔹 European Union:
The Digital Services Act (DSA)[14] focuses on platform accountability and systemic risk management to combat misinformation. It targets systemic platform-level risk. It requires transparency in content moderation algorithms and stronger safeguards against viral fake news.
🔹 India:
There is a considerable gap that is evident in Indian laws as compared to other countries. It lacks a dedicated legislative framework. There is no comprehensive law that directly targets fake news. It relies on existing general laws and depends on their interpretations. This leads to vague and inconsistent outcomes and patchy enforcement.
- Relies on old penal laws and delegated executive powers
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
India must balance misinformation control with freedom of speech:
- Article 19(1)(a)[15] – Right to freedom of speech and expression. This article guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 19(2)[16] – Allows reasonable restrictions for public order, decency, and sovereignty. This article permits reasonable restrictions for public order, security, defamation, incitement, etc.
The real challenge is finding a balance. How do we tackle harmful content without suppressing dissent or satire? Courts have repeatedly emphasized that truth, satire, and fair criticism deserve protection. So, any law against fake news has to be carefully worded; it can’t be vague or too broad, or it risks being misused.
CONCLUSION
Fake news becomes a serious threat when it spreads hatred, triggers panic, or misleads people; it can deeply impact democracy and public safety. However, Indian laws right now seem incomplete and focused more on reacting than preventing. While some provisions in the IT Act and Indian Penal Code touch on it, they don’t go far enough or offer a consistent framework. What’s needed is a well-defined offence that has a narrow and clear scope, along with strong safeguards to prevent misuse. There’s also a growing need for better enforcement at the platform level, as well as more efforts to promote media literacy and encourage digital fact-checking. The people need to be aware of the growing spread of misinformation and must be well equipped to fact-check every piece of information they get on the internet. All news must be taken with a grain of salt. In the end, tackling fake news shouldn’t mean criminalizing everything; it should be about smart regulation, holding platforms accountable, and building public awareness.
Author(s) Name: Sidhika Jaswal (Lovely Professional University)
References:
[1] Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan, ‘Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making’ (Council of Europe Report, 2017) https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c accessed 18 June 2025
[2] Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral, ‘The Spread of True and False News Online’ (2018) Science 359(6380) 1146 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559 accessed 18 June 2025
[3] Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, ‘Fake News’ (Digital India) https://www.meity.gov.in/ accessed 19 June 2025
[4] Information Technology Act 2000, ss 66D
[5] Information Technology Act 2000, ss 69A
[6] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 https://www.meity.gov.in/content/intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-2021 accessed 18 June 2025
[7] Indian Penal Code 1860, ss 505(1)(b)
[8] Indian Penal Code 1860, ss 153A
[9] Indian Penal Code 1860, ss 124A
[10] Indian Penal Code 1860, ss 468
[11] Apar Gupta, ‘The Legal Vacuum on Fake News in India’ (2018) The Wire https://thewire.in/law/fake-news-legal-framework accessed 17 June 2025
[12] Information Technology Act 2000, ss 66C, 66D, 66E, 67
[13] Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Singapore) https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/18-2019 accessed 19 June 2025
[14] European Commission, ‘The Digital Services Act’ (2022) https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package accessed 19 June 2025
[15] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a)
[16] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(2)
