Fake News During Elections
✅ What is Fake News in the Context of Elections?
Fake news during elections refers to the intentional dissemination of false or misleading information—through traditional media, social media, or digital platforms—with the aim of influencing voters, discrediting political parties or candidates, or manipulating public opinion.
✅ Forms of Election-Related Fake News
| Type of Fake News | Description |
|---|---|
| Misleading Claims | False claims about a candidate’s background, achievements, or policies. |
| Deepfakes and Edited Videos | Manipulated visuals to portray leaders inaccurately. |
| False Exit Polls | Disseminating incorrect poll data to influence voting. |
| Communal or Caste-based Misinformation | To polarize voters on religious or caste lines. |
| Fake Endorsements | Attributing false endorsements by celebrities or influencers. |
✅ Laws That Govern Fake News During Elections
| Law | Provision |
|---|---|
| Representation of the People Act, 1951 | Sections 123(4), 125 – Prohibits false statements to influence elections. |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Sections 153A, 171G, 505 – Punishes statements that cause disharmony or public mischief. |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | Section 66D – Punishment for cheating by impersonation using computer resources. |
| Model Code of Conduct (MCC) | Enforced by Election Commission – discourages misleading publicity. |
| Press Council of India Norms | Guidelines for ethical reporting during elections. |
⚖️ Key Cases Involving Fake News During Elections
⚖️ 1. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501
Facts: Though primarily about lynchings caused by misinformation, this case also discussed the impact of fake news via social media on public order, including elections.
Judgment: Supreme Court directed central and state governments to tackle fake news on digital platforms.
Significance: Laid foundation for monitoring misinformation that can disrupt democratic processes, including elections.
⚖️ 2. Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000) 8 SCC 216
Facts: Concerned the Election Commission’s powers in ensuring free and fair elections.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that the EC has plenary powers under Article 324 to intervene against malpractice, including false propaganda and fake news.
Significance: Legitimized EC's authority to take preemptive action against misinformation.
⚖️ 3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399
Facts: Focused on voters’ right to know about candidates' criminal, financial, and educational background.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that withholding true information is a form of deception, and hence fake or manipulated data during elections can distort electoral choices.
Significance: Recognized fake or incomplete information as a violation of electoral rights.
⚖️ 4. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2005) 3 SCC 325
Facts: Though related to obscene content on digital platforms, the court discussed intermediary liability under the IT Act.
Relevance: Applied during elections to hold social media platforms accountable for hosting fake news.
Significance: Established platform responsibility, crucial in election misinformation regulation.
⚖️ 5. Re: Distribution of Paid News and Political Advertising (ECI Orders, 2010–2013)
Facts: ECI received complaints of fake news published as genuine news to favor candidates, especially in regional newspapers during elections.
Action Taken:
ECI termed such actions as "paid news" and a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act.
Candidates involved were disqualified in some cases.
Significance: First administrative recognition of fake electoral content as a corrupt practice.
⚖️ *6. Main Madhya Pradesh Election Case (Ashok Sharma v. Election Commission of India, 2018)
Facts: Complaint about viral fake news targeting a political candidate during elections via WhatsApp groups.
EC’s Action: Directed removal of content and lodged FIRs under IPC and IT Act.
Significance: Demonstrated the EC’s power to act against individuals or groups spreading fake news during the election period.
⚖️ *7. Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Case (Parliamentary Inquiry, 2018)
Facts: Allegations that user data was used to micro-target voters in Indian elections with fake/misleading content.
Relevance: Led to concerns over manipulation of democratic processes through digital disinformation.
Outcome: Facebook was summoned by the Parliamentary Committee on IT; the issue is now globally cited as a case of fake electoral influence.
Significance: Sparked demand for stricter data protection and digital content regulation during elections.
🛡️ Election Commission of India’s Efforts Against Fake News
| Initiative | Purpose |
|---|---|
| cVIGIL App | Allows citizens to report MCC violations including fake ads. |
| Social Media Code of Conduct (2019) | Collaboration with Google, Meta, Twitter to monitor content. |
| Fact-checking Units | Monitor misinformation on polling and candidates. |
| Pre-certification of Political Ads | Ensures all digital ads are vetted by the Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC). |
✅ Conclusion
Fake news during elections is a direct threat to democracy as it misleads voters and distorts the electoral process.
Indian courts and the Election Commission have taken a proactive stance in regulating misinformation, treating it as a form of electoral malpractice or corrupt practice.
Landmark cases like Ashok Kumar, PUCL, and the Paid News Orders have built the legal foundation for countering fake electoral content.
With the rise of social media, platform accountability, citizen awareness, and regulatory vigilance are key to safeguarding free and fair elections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments