Centre notifies fact check unit under PIB to monitor online content
New Delhi, Mar 20: The Centre on Wednesday notified the fact check unit under the Press Information Bureau (PIB) to monitor online content pertaining to the government for accuracy.
The fact check unit has been notified under IT Rules of 2021 by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
"The central government hereby notifies the Fact Check Unit under the Press Information Bureau of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as the fact check unit of the Central Government for the purposes of the said sub-clause, in respect of any business of the Central Government," the notification said.
The Fact Check Unit will be the nodal agency to tackle or alert about all fake news or misinformation related to the central government.
The notification came days after the Bombay High Court declined to restrain the Centre from notifying the unit. The petition was filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and the Editors Guild of India.
The petitioners have moved the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court verdict and the matter is expected to come up for hearing on Thursday.
In April last year, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) promulgated the 2023 Rules, which further amended the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
Under the new rules, if the fact check unit comes across or is informed about any posts that are "fake", "false" or contain "misleading" facts pertaining to the business of the government, it would flag it to the social media intermediaries.
The online intermediaries would then have to take down such content if they wanted to retain their "safe harbour" (legal immunity against third-party content).
The fact check unit under PIB was established in November 2019 with a stated objective of acting as a deterrent to creators and disseminators of fake news and misinformation.
It also provides people with an easy avenue to report suspicious and questionable information pertaining to the Government of India.
The unit is mandated to counter misinformation on government policies, initiatives and schemes either suo motu or under a reference via complaints.
The unit actively monitors, detects, and counters disinformation campaigns, ensuring that false information about the government is promptly exposed and corrected.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Dileep case: Advocate representing survivor alleges Judge favoured actor
Thiruvanthapuram: A month after Malayalam film Actor Dileep was acquitted in the the case pertaining to abduction and rape of a famous Malayalam actress, Advocate T B Mini, the survivor's counsel in the case has accussed the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese of favouring Actor Dileep in her petition to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, reported On Manorama.
In her petition(accessed by Onmanorama), Mini has sought contempt of court proceedings against Honey Varghese alleging that the trial court judge made derisive remarks about her, including claims that she would doze off during court proceedings and was lax in handling the actress assault case.
Mini, who described the comments as false, contemptuous and defamatory, alleged in her petition that Honey Varghese had unduly favoured Dileep, the actor and producer who was the eighth accused in the case.
In the verdict delivered in December last year, Judge Honey Varghese acquitted Dileep and three other accused while sentencing six convicts to imprisonment.
The ruling drew major uproar, while Mini had refrained from making any public remarks against the judge at the time, stating only that the verdict was disappointing, now she has levelled serious allegations against the judge as the High Court is set to begin hearing the bail pleas filed by the six convicts on February 4.
Furthermore, Mini has stated in her petition that since the very first stage of the trial, the Judge Honey Varghese passed derogatory remarks against the survivor and behaved discourteously towards the prosecution, which eventually led to the resignation of two Special Public Prosecutors. According to Mini, the undue favour shown by Honey Varghese to Dileep resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice and brought disrepute to the judicial system.
She stated in the petition that it was a regular practice of Honey Varghese to pass derogatory comments about the survivor as well as the prosecution witnesses.
Mini also alleged that on several occasions, the Special Public Prosecutor was compelled to remind the judge that such conduct was in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions.
Mini also questioned the manner in which Honey Varghese conducted the inquiry into the illegal access of the memory card containing visuals of the sexual assault.
The memory card, a vital piece of evidence kept in the custody of the Sessions Court, was unlawfully accessed and tampered with, leading to a change in its hash value.
According to the report, an examination by the State Forensic Science Laboratory found that the card had been accessed on January 9, 2018, December 13, 2018, and July 19, 2021, while it was under the safe custody of different courts.
Mini stated in the petition that the memory card was illegally accessed for nearly half an hour in July 2021 while it was in the custody of the court presided over by Honey Varghese.
After the survivor approached the High Court citing a breach of privacy, the HC directed Honey Varghese to conduct an inquiry. Mini alleged that the judge carried out only a perfunctory inquiry, in violation of the High Court’s directions.
Mini has sought legal action against Honey Varghese, stating that when a lawyer is defamed in open court through false allegations, the judge is liable to face proceedings before the High Court. She noted in the petition that although she had a very limited role in the trial as the survivor’s counsel, she regularly attended the proceedings from November 2022 onward.
