जानामि धर्मं न च मे प्रवृत्तिः, (I know what is right conduct but I am not inclined towards it)
जानाम्यधर्मं न च मे निवृत्तिः। (I know what is wrong conduct but I am not free from it)
-(Duryodhana cited in Garg Samhita, Verse 36, Chapter 50)
"Delighted at the passage of The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2023 in the Lok Sabha with such phenomenal support. I thank MPs across Party lines who voted in support of this Bill. The Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam is a historic legislation which will further boost women empowerment and will enable even greater participation of women in our political process."
-Narendra Modi on Women Reservation Bill, 20 September 2023, 9:31 pm on X
"By opposing women's reservation, the sin that the opposition has committed... they will surely be punished for it."
-Narendra Modi on 18 April 2026, 9:04 pm on X
“On Aadhaar, neither the Team that I met nor PM could answer my Qs on security threat it can pose. There is no vision, only political gimmick.”
-Narendra Modi, 8 April 2014, 8:14 pm on X
“Acceptance of Aadhaar as a means of good governance & transparency is gladdening. It ensures savings to exchequer & better service delivery.”
-Narendra Modi, 16 July 2016, 8:14 pm on X
Besides ABP news channel, Prabhat Khabar and Anand Bazar Patrika, a Bengali newspaper, only two English newspapers, The Telegraph and The Hindu (English) published the factually correct headline about what happened in Parliament on 17 April 2026, on the final day of its brief session. These five are like Nunez, a visitor in The Country of the Blind (1904), a short story by HG Wells, wherein the residents held the view that the visitor who had eyes was diseased.
All other newspapers, news magazines, news channels, digital news sites like The Hindu (Tamil), The Hindu Business Line, Jansatta, Dainik Jagran, Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Navbharat Times, The Times of India, Indian Express, The Financial Express, The New Indian Express, The Tribune, Deccan Herald, Daily Pioneer, Deccan Chronicle, India Today, DD News, DD India, NDTV, Republic TV, ANI, News X, News18, Times Now, The Print, First Post, Clarion India, and News 9 enveloped themselves in the what Charles Mackay refers to as Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841). Mackay wrote: “Men, it has been said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
The Hindu's headline reads: “United opposition defeats Delimitation Bill”. The Telegraph headline reads: "Bill bouquet voted down". Both are examples of correct reporting. The incorrect headline in Indian Express and its ilk reads: “Opposition stands, women’s Bill falls.” The misleading headline of The Hindu (Tamil) reads: "the bill that gives 33% to women in Lok Sabha and Assemblies Women Reservation Bill Fails supported by 298; opposed by 230". It failed to learn from The Hindu’s English version. The correct headline of Anand Bazar Patrika reads: The government is unable to get required vote for Constitution Amendment, Why so hurry: Question raised within NDA, Opposition's Unity caused defeat of the Union Government.
The fact is that the “Women’s Reservation Bill” did not fall because it had already been passed in 2023. These erring news outlets failed to announce that the “Women’s Reservation Act”, the Constitution (106th) Amendment Act, 2023 was notified on 16 April 2026, a day before the vote on the Constitution (131st) Amendment Bill was defeated in Parliament on 17 April 2026.
The actual failure of the ruling parties was in their inability to secure the two-thirds majority required for amendment in the Constitution under Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal of any provision according to the procedure laid down therein which is different from the procedure for ordinary legislation. Article 368, which has been amended by the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment), Act, 1971 and the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976.
An amendment can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either house of Parliament. The Bill so initiated must be passed in each house by a majority of the total membership of that house and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that house present and voting. There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement between the two houses. When the Bill is so passed, it must be presented to the president who shall give his assent to the Bill.
Where the amendment seeks to make any change in any of the provisions in Article 54, Article 55, Article 73, Article 162 or Article 241, or Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule, or the representation of states in Parliament, or the provisions of Article 368, the amendment must be ratified by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states. Such ratification is to be by resolution passed by the state legislatures before the Bill making provision for such an amendment is presented to the president for assent.
Besides The Hindu’s English version and The Telegraph, none of the headlines was closer to factual reporting. Almost all the news outlets were taken for a ride by the narrative woven by the ruling parties and their collaborators. Such factually incorrect reporting with regard to legislations and judgements is not new. In this instance, the editors of these news outlets have been caught with indisputable evidence. It demonstrates how they have aligned their coverage with the ruling parties' narrative.
Most news outlets have been committing colossal blunders with regard to the Aadhaar number online database as well. They failed to report how even the
Adhaar Trust, the trust of the
chairman of Infosys Ltd, Nandan Nilekani, had Adhaar in its name. The
URL which referred to Adhaar Trust has been disabled. The published text of the story published by
The Economic Times is available with the author.
The failure of editors is evident in their reporting on The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, which was withdrawn on 3 March 2016 from the Rajya Sabha and introduced as the Aadhaar Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies Benefits and Services Bill, 2016 in the garb of a controversial Money Bill, to make the unique identification authority of India (UIDAI), a statutory body. UIDAI has been operational since 28 January 2009 prior to the enactment of the statute, whose constitutionality is under challenge since November 2019.
UIDAI has been signing MoUs (memorandums of understanding) with foreign entities like Accenture (US), Ernst & Young (UK) and Safran group (French) in the name of the president of India to transfer data of all present and future Indians, including tycoons, their editors, all government employees and legislators, including armed forces and intelligence agencies. UIDAI signed MoUs with state governments and armed forces as well.
Subsequent to the enactment of Aadhaar Act, 2016, it legalised the ongoing illegitimate transfer of data through Section 57 of the Act. The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench declared Section 57 to be unconstitutional on 26 September 2028 and was deleted by the Aadhaar Amendment Act of 2019 in compliance with the court’s judgement but the MoUs signed by UIDAI and contract agreements between state governments and the armed forces are being enforced in a business as usual manner. To legitimise the ongoing and unending transfer of data of all Indians, the Aadhaar Amendment Act, 2019 was repealed on 18 December 2023 with impunity, unmindful of the Supreme Court’s verdict declaring Section 57 to be unconstitutional.
With few exceptions, news outlets in general have failed to report on the lethal consequences of such unimpeded data flow from India to foreign entities for India’s data sovereignty and security. They have failed to report about how “Bharatiya– Automated Finger Print Identification System (AFSI), was launched in January 2009, being funded by the department of information technology, ministry of communications and information technology, for collection of biometric information of the people of the country.”
But the same was not being used by UIDAI because, according to the government, “The quality, nature and manner of collection of biometric data by other biometric projects may not be of the nature that can be used for the purpose of the Aadhaar scheme and hence it may not be possible to use the fingerprints captured under the Bharatiya–AFSI project.”
The Union government reached the conclusion that the biometric technology of foreign firms is better than the existing Indian one from the point of uniqueness without any comparative study. There is no study which concluded that AFSI’s quality, nature and manner of collection of biometric data was not of the required nature which can impart uniqueness.
This glaring omission by editors disregards Big Data-related lessons from military debacles faced by sovereign governments of Venezuela and Iran due to cyber Trojan horses deployed by these foreign entities and their collaborators.
Editorial Failures Galore
Most news entities failed to report on the factual status of the Constitution (131st) Amendment Bill and two other legislations-The Delimitation Bill, 2026, and The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which were entirely different from the Women’s Reservation Act enacted in 2023 through the Constitution (106) Amendment Act.
The former sought to expand the Lok Sabha’s strength to 850 members—815 seats allocated to states and 35 to Union Territories and remove the requirement that delimitation be based on post-2026 census data. It sought to permit the use of 2011 census data. The former was voted down and the latter two Bills were withdrawn. It demonstrated that the democratic mandate was against the three bills and was unanimously in favour of the Women's reservation (one-third of seats), which was introduced by the 106th Amendment Act, 2023, but the ruling parties had tied its implementation to a future census and subsequent delimitation.
The three Bills were introduced in breach of the Union government’s Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, adopted in 2014, which requires that draft legislation be placed in the public domain for at least 30 days prior to Cabinet approval. The approach of the ruling parties undermines deliberative legislative process. The legislature is undergoing executivisation. The mockery of the constitutional office of the deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha illustrates it.
Notably, the Section 10 of the proposed Delimitation Bill, 2026 was making the judiciary irrelevant. The Delimitation Bill, 2026 had proposed a new Delimitation Commission comprising a current or former Supreme Court judge, the chief election commissioner and state election commissioners. The commission was tasked with readjusting seat allocations in both Parliament and state assemblies drawing on the latest available census data and redrawing constituency boundaries accordingly. The proposed commission was vested with powers equivalent to that of a civil court, including the ability to summon data and witnesses.
As per the proposal, its decisions were proposed to be final and beyond judicial review. The proposed changes to Article 82 of the Constitution had proposed to remove the freeze and empowered Parliament to decide, by simple majority, which census data would serve as the baseline for delimitation.
The freeze on using the 1971 census for determining Lok Sabha and state assembly seat allocations was initiated by the 42nd Amendment in 1976 and extended until 2026 by the 84th Amendment in 2001. The proposed change to Article 82 (and related provisions such as Article 170 for the states) removes the long-standing freeze and introduces a new formulation where seat allocation will be based on “such census as Parliament may by law determine.” It empowered Parliament to decide which census data should serve as the baseline for delimitation, by a simple majority, a deviation from the existing constitutional scheme. The proposal provided for one-third reservation for women based on existing 2011 census data, because 2027 census data would delay implementation.
Had editors performed their task well, they would have asked its reporters who cover Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and state legislatures to pay attention to Article 243D of the Constitution of India which provides for one-third reservation for women in Panchayati Raj institutions (PRIs) and its successful implementation. In as many as 21 states and two Union territories (UTs), including Bihar and West Bengal, provisions have been in their respective State Panchayati Raj Acts/Rules, for 50% reservation for women in PRIs. Reservation for women in PRIs is provided through the respective State Panchayati Raj Acts in the existing structure. This tried, tested and effective approach could easily have been shown as a remedy for the non-implementation of women’s reservation in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
A beginning can be made even now by reserving seats of office-bearers in the political parties for women and in their selection of candidates in the elections. A lesson could have been drawn from the Supreme Court's order dated 24 March 2025, wherein it mandated that there shall be 30% representation of women lawyers as office-bearers/ executive members in the district/ taluka or any other type of bar associations. The Court had issued directions to the registrar generals of all the High Courts to ensure such representations in all the bar associations.
Significantly, on 21 April 2026, MEITY published its proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its notice states that its amendments are limited to identifying synthetically generated information be continuously and clearly visible throughout the duration of the content in visual display. A similar draft was circulated on 30 March 2026. Mandatory retention obligations under the Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) proposed amendment show that intermediaries/ platforms are required to retain user data when they register for a computer resource for a period of 180 days. This is contrary to the principle of data minimisation and purpose limitation laid down in the Supreme Court in the fundamental right to privacy/ Aadhaar case.
There is a compelling reason to withdraw this proposed provision. The amendment to the proviso to Rule 8(1) extends applicability of Rules 14, 15, and 16 to news and current affairs content which are hosted by users who are not 'publishers' with the motive of bringing intermediaries and user-generated news under the blocking powers of the ministry of information and broadcasting and the jurisdiction of the inter-departmental committee (IDC) under Part III of the 2021 IT Rules without requirement that the 'matter' arise from a complaint, without requirement that the 'matter' relate to a Code of Ethics violation and without requirement that the affected party be heard before the referral.
This provision is in the teeth of provisions under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and imposes restrictions on public debate, dissent, criticism and activism. The Union government's argument in the Supreme Court that it owns the body of citizens was rejected by the Court. The proposed amendments constitute a lethal assault on the fundamental right to freedom of speech are indefensible.
The editorial failure in the reporting about executive, legislative and judicial deliberations has cognitive consequences for the nation.
Paid News about Aadhaar Number Database and a Fake Money Bill
Misreporting is not limited to the constitutional amendment legislation. It extends to the Aadhaar Act, which was passed by the Lok Sabha as a fake Money Bill along with the unconstitutional Section 57.
Unlike the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, the Aadhaar Bill, 2016, was discussed, voted and passed in its original form through voice vote to the Rajya Sabha by the evening in the Lok Sabha on 11 March 2016, despite bitter protests by the opposition parties. On 16 March 2016, the Rajya Sabha discussed the Aadhaar Bill for almost five hours and certain amendments were added before the Bill was sent back to the Lok Sabha but the Lok Sabha rejected the recommendations sent by the Rajya Sabha and the Aadhaar Bill was passed by the same evening in the original form it was introduced. According to Article 109, for a Money Bill, Lok Sabha is not bound to accept the amendments made to the Bill by the Rajya Sabha. As per Article 111 of the Constitution, the president cannot return a Money Bill to the Lok Sabha for reconsideration with his/her recommendations. He is mandated, without discretion, to give his assent.
During the discussion in the Lok Sabha with a quorum of 73 out of 545 members, several MPs from among the opposition parties contended that the Aadhaar Bill was wrongly introduced as a Money Bill. Article 110 of the Constitution lays down the criteria for Bills to be introduced as Money Bills. For the sake of explanation, clause (1) of the Article says that a Bill would be deemed a Money Bill ‘only’ if its provisions deal with the criteria specified in sub clauses (a) to (g). In this regard, the government has explained the Money Bill status of this Bill by using Article 110(c) that relates to the payment of money into or the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund of India, along with sub clause (g), which includes ‘any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub clause (a) to (f)’.
The Indian National Congress had questioned the legitimacy of this Bill as a Money Bill, as in Section 57, it permits private entities to use Aadhaar for the purposes of establishing identity, thereby extending the scope from only expenditure incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Biju Janata Dal (BJD) had raised concerns regarding the lack of privacy protection, the introduction of Aadhaar as a Money Bill, and the loopholes in outsourcing the collection of data to private contractors. It argued that collection of such data, along with its linking to everyday activities like banking, and health makes it a medium to construct or de-construct a citizen through mass surveillance, ethnic and racial cleansing. This was because the Money Bill left room for 'other biological attributes' to be collected as per Section 2(g)) of the Aadhaar legislation, paving the way for the collection of the DNA of the population in the near future. The exception for the disclosure of sensitive biometric information in the interest of ‘national security’ was a vague and open-ended provision. It concluded that “this is not a Money Bill, Full Stop.”
Parliamentarians had raised the issue of lack of notification to an individual if there is a breach of his/ her personal data. They also raised issues of the absence of a right to be heard by the data subject when, as per Section 33(1), the district judge decides upon the disclosure of personal information of the individual concerned. The prohibition on a court to take cognizance of an individual’s complaint as per Section 47, thereby limiting an individual’s recourse mechanism against the UIDAI is questionable. They pointed out that Section 7 of the Aadhaar legislation gives an option to Union and state governments to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing subsidies, thereby moving away from the concept of Aadhaar being a mere entitlement as stated in Section 3(1). This constitutes a breach of the citizens’ trust.
A large number of MPs in the Lok Sabha had demanded that the Aadhaar Bill be sent for scrutiny to a parliamentary standing committee but their demand was not considered.
The Rajya Sabha too had witnessed rigorous discussion over the Money Bill in question on 16 March 2016. Indian National Congress suggested many amendments to the proposed Bill, beginning with a letter from a former attorney general who confirmed its point that in ‘pith and substance’, the Aadhaar Bill was not a Money Bill. It expressed its concern over the power given under delegated legislation and dependence on an untested technology at a large scale. It demanded that the Bill be sent to a parliamentary standing committee to produce an improved version for the law on Aadhaar number.
Several MPs pointed out that Aadhaar number cannot distinguish between citizens and residents, non-citizens will be able to avail subsidies as a part of this scheme. During the voting in the Rajya Sabha, most of the clauses of the Bill passed without any changes, but Jairam Ramesh of Indian National Congress had insisted for the process of division of votes, not just a voice vote, for four of his amendments. All these amendments were passed in the division process with quite a close call. The first amendment among these was on Section 3 of the Bill and demanded that residents not be included for the purposes of Aadhaar number. This amendment was passed with 76-64 votes.
The amendment to Section 7 that permits Aadhaar to be made mandatory for securing benefits and subsidies of government-related schemes also passed the division process with the same margin of 76-64 votes. The third amendment pressed by Mr Ramesh was the replacement of the phrase ‘national security’ to ‘public emergency or public safety’ in Section 33(2) and have an independent member like CVC or CAG in the Oversight Committee that reviews such directions for disclosure. This amendment passed with 77 Ayes and 64 Noes.
Notably, the last amendment by him on the grounds of limiting the use of Aadhaar number to only government schemes and not for other purposes as stated in Section 57 also passed with a majority in the house by 76-65 votes. Subsequently, with the recommendations, the Aadhaar Bill was returned to the Lok Sabha for its perusal. The Lok Sabha did not consider the recommendations on the Aadhaar Bill given by the Rajya Sabha.
Now it is up to the Supreme Court which had said that the Court would not hesitate to rectify if the speaker’s certificate about a Money Bill is incorrect. The court said, “Yes, we have identified the role and authority of the speaker. But if the speaker says blue is green, we will ask the speaker to say it is blue…that we will set right”. But so far the Court has not done so and has kept the matter pending. It ought to pay heed to the disclosures by a former CBI judge that the State is fully capable of tampering with the electronic database. The fact is that all biometric databases are electronic databases as well, and besides State actors, non-State actors are also indulgent in tampering.
Given such a controversial and acrimonious background of the passage of Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill, there was/is journalistic duty of the editors to subject the Aadhaar Act and related schemes to rigorous scrutiny instead of parroting the government’s questionable claims about its advantages, like the citizens of the country of the blind caught in a miasma of extraordinary delusions.
Take the case of the news reports published on 11 May 2023 with regard to the Bihar Gazette Notification dated 9 May 2023. The notification says, Aadhaar number is voluntary but news reports in Bihar reported the contrary. It seems that some officials and big data vendors are routinely misleading editors and reporters with regard to news items on Aadhaar number and related schemes. It is evident from CAG’s audit reports in this regard.
Till date, editors have failed to perform the Herculean task of publishing the correct news report based on the official gazette notification dated 9 May 2023 in the light of notification number 380, Gazette of Bihar dated 9 May 2023. It can be accessed at–
https://egazette.bih.nic.in/Gazette.aspx.
The fifth sentence in the last paragraph of the Bihar Gazette notification dated 9 May 2023 clearly says, 'Aadhaar authentication' is 'on voluntary basis'. It has to be voluntary because of Sections 7 of the Aadhaar Act 2016. The second para of Sections 7 of the Aadhaar Act 2016 implies that Aadhaar is not mandatory for anything. It shows that due to some communication gap or ignorance of relevant legal provisions, there is misreporting of facts regarding Aadhaar being mandatory.
The URLs of fake news reports dated 11 May 2023 regarding "mandatory" Aadhaar for registration is as under:
The fact is that UID/ Aadhaar number of residents of India is irrelevant for citizens of India. The government's "targeted" subsidy, benefits and services are for citizens, not for residents of India. Aadhaar number is relevant for residents, not for citizens. Since 2010, the enrolment form (for those residents of India who have lived in India for 182 days or more) declares that enrolment for Aadhaar is voluntary. There is no public institution which is performing the task of educating editors and reporters about rectifying their blunders.
It may be recalled that by an illegal and unconstitutional circular dated 23 March 2017, the department of telecommunications (DoT) had directed that all licensees shall re-verify the existing mobile subscribers (pre-paid and post-paid) through Aadhaar-based e-KYC process. It amounted to mandatory linking of mobile connections with Aadhaar, whose requirement was not only in respect of those individuals who would be becoming mobile subscribers, but also applies to existing subscribers as well.
Debunking such misplaced claims and fake news based on these dubious claims, the majority judgement of the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench in its judgement dated 26 September 2018, observed: “We are of the opinion that not only such a circular lacks backing of a law, but it fails to meet the requirement of proportionality as well. It does not meet the ‘necessity stage’ and ‘balancing stage’ tests to check the primary menace which is in the mind of the respondent authorities. There can be other appropriate laws and less intrusive alternatives. For the misuse of such SIM cards by a handful of persons, the entire population cannot be subjected to intrusion into their private lives. It also impinges upon the voluntary nature of the Aadhaar scheme. We find it to be disproportionate and unreasonable state compulsion. It is to be borne in mind that every individual/ resident subscribing to a SIM card does not enjoy the subsidy benefit or services mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in declaring the circular dated 23 March 2017 as unconstitutional.” The same constitutional logic applies to the irrational and unconstitutional requirement of an Aadhaar number for KYC. There is nothing related to the Aadhaar number online database which is not painful and unconstitutional.
Notably, the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force on 24 July 2019. The Act has amended the Aadhaar Act, 2016 as well as the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The amendment was done in compliance with the 4:1 judgement by the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 26 September 2018 in justice (Retd.) KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India. The court has declared provisions of Aadhaar Act like Section 57 relating to use of Aadhaar by private entities to be unconstitutional.
The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act provided for voluntary use of Aadhaar number in physical or electronic form by authentication or offline verification with the consent of the Aadhaar number holder. It provided for the use of the 12-digit Aadhaar number and its alternative virtual identity to conceal the actual Aadhaar number of an individual. It gave an option to children who are Aadhaar number holders to cancel their Aadhaar number on attaining the age of 18 years. It permitted the entities to perform authentication only when they are compliant with the standards of privacy and security specified by the authority; and the authentication is permitted under any law made by Parliament or is prescribed to be in the interest of state by the Central government.
It allowed the use of Aadhaar number for authentication on a voluntary basis as an acceptable KYC document under the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. It deleted Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act relating to use of Aadhaar by private entities. It prevented denial of services for refusing to, or being unable to, undergo authentication. It provided for the establishment of the Unique Identification Authority of India Fund. It provided for civil penalties, its adjudication, appeal thereof in regard to violations of Aadhaar Act and provisions by entities in the Aadhaar ecosystem. The enactment of Aadhaar number related legislations were widely reported by the news outlets.
But when The Gazette of India published The Repealing and Amending Act, 2023 on 18 December 2023 to repeal the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 through the First Schedule of the former, there was deafening silence. Such silence is an exercise in dereliction of journalistic duty. The repeal implies that the Union government has decided that it will not comply with the Court's judgement against transfer of demographic, biometric, transaction data and metadata of all present and future Indians including heads of states, prime ministers, Union ministers, chief ministers, presiding officers of legislatures, judicial institutions, armed forces, intelligence personnel, tycoons, editors, students and women to private entities including foreign entities using Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act.
The silence of news entities implies that blatant non-compliance of the Court's judgement isn't newsworthy. It also implies that the fact that the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act is pending before a seven-judge Constitution Bench is inconsequential.
'Is it not possible that there are institutional pressures within MEITY that have influenced editorial decisions? Wasn’t there similar manipulation in the case of reporting about the Constitution (131st) Amendment Bill?
The permanent record of failures by editors and reporters of major news entities is a self-created record of "how not to do journalism and how not to undermine truth." If they do not rectify their blunder, it will make them purveyors of inaccurate information who are not inclined to act in a righteous manner. To avoid being labelled as Duryodhana, the least the editors and reporters can do is to issue an apology and a clarification for their acts of omission and commission in their reporting about the non-enactment of Constitution (131st) Amendment Bill and the withdrawal of two related bills.
Safeguarding Sense of Reality from Fake News
False news in the form of fake news, paid news, morphed news, embedded news, etc, has eclipsed the real news. This is true in the general elections of India also. The purpose of serving misleading news is to create a reality that is beyond the truth. Sowing and reaping of rumours by ruling parties is not a new thing.
Disinformation is false information that is intentionally spoken, written and broadcast. The Cambridge Dictionary defines 'fake news' as: “false stories that appear to be news, spread on the Internet or using other media, and usually intended to influence political views or as a joke.” Most ‘fake news’ undermines the law and protections of the free press and risks the public’s open access to many facts.
The dominance of ‘fake news’ and ‘disinformation’ can be gauged from the fact that UNESCO published a 128-page-long Journalism. Fake News & Disinformation (2018). Its booklet was preceded by a workshop at the Global Investigative Journalism Network's Global Conference 2021, which noted that in most of the propaganda campaigns ‘wrong context’ is used. A factual statement or original quotation is stripped of its original meaning. In many cases it is reframed to mislead. Therefore, it is important to keep the context in mind when investigating misinformation or disinformation.
A wide range of incidents related to disinformation—from defamation, promoting enmity between groups to inciting violence—fall under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, 2000. But the fact remains there is a lack of legal and technical capacity to control fake news. The social, economic and human losses caused by ‘fake news’ and ‘disinformation’ are so immense that they cannot be compensated.
The question is: Who will decide which news or information is true or which is fake? Which news or information can lead to violence and which cannot? The fact-checking unit of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) was set up to 'take cognisance of fake news'. Such laws can be used by governments to label independent journalism as 'fake news' or disinformation—and have done so.
Out of the 363 journalists jailed worldwide in 2022, 39 were jailed for “fake news” or disinformation policy violations, according to the committee to protect journalists. It is noteworthy that due to the spread of fake news, true information gets suppressed and misinformation has the power to weaken democratic discussion. The goal of fake news is to destroy the fundamental elements of society, i.e,. the stability of truth. Depending on the scale of dissemination, fake news drowns out true information, causing the character of discourse to be overshadowed by the loudest voice in place of truth.
Therefore, disinformation has the power to forever impair democratic debate, pushing the marketplace of free ideas to collapse under the heavy weight of fake stories. Every day we witness incidents of communalism fueled by fake rumors and targeted propaganda campaigns and violence carried out by masquerading as advocates of morality. Civil society has been tarnished by the spread of fake news. It has forced us to reconsider the limits of freedom of expression on the Internet. Exposing ‘fake news’ and disinformation is a challenge. False and misleading information, fake news and misinformation can be identified. To avoid this, check the source. Check out reliable news media organizations. Verify images and trust fact-checking websites and check suspicious news and posts before re-sharing them.
"The apocalypse is a process that has been going on for a very long time and will continue for a very long time. The apocalypse is now. The apocalypse is an ongoing judgment" wrote László Krasznahorkai, the author of War & War (1999). Once upon a time, news used to be published first and sold later. Now they seem to be sold first and published later! Rampant misreporting on legislations, constitutional amendments and judgments creates an ‘irreality’, deludes fellow citizens and shapes misinformed public sphere due to irresponsible legal reporting.
The process of deformation and decay of language must be resisted in journalism and elsewhere. In his Introduction to Metaphysics (1959), Martin Heidegger wrote that the resistance is required in an “attempt to regain the unimpaired strength of language and words; for words and language are not wrappings in which things are packed for the commerce of those who write and speak. It is in words and language that things first come into being and are. For this reason, the misuse of language in idle talk, in slogans and phrases, destroys our authentic relation to things.” The destruction of the true relation between a word and its meaning destroys the sense of reality which is a pre-condition for justice and truth to prevail.
You may also want to read…
(The author is a practising advocate and a researcher of philosophy, mass communication and law. He is an ex-Fellow, Berlin-based International Research Group on Authoritarianism and Counter Strategies (IRGAC). He is also the editor of www.toxicswatch.org.)
