Fake news after Operation Sindoor exposed urgent need for stronger media regulation and digital accountability in India.
NEW DELHI: After India carried out strikes on nine terrorist bases under Operation Sindoor, a flood of fake news erupted on social media. Not only that—some prominent Indian TV news channels and their websites, which claim to reach vast audiences, also aired misleading and provocative reports late at night in their rush to compete. This led to chaos both domestically and abroad. Women and the elderly spent the night calling relatives in panic. In response to the widespread fake news, officials from the Ministry of Information Technology and the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting convened an emergency meeting to urgently discuss countermeasures. The government ordered the immediate removal of misleading content. From the following day onward, the media appeared somewhat more restrained. In this national crisis-like situation, what’s being criticised is not the freedom of the press, but its recklessness and the indirect support it can lend to anti-India forces. However, the question remains—despite the vast expansion of advanced communication technologies, why have the Indian Parliament, Government, and Supreme Court failed to implement stringent and effective laws for newspapers, TV and YouTube channels, websites, and social media? Are emergency procedures for security, medical treatment, or disaster relief not supposed to be pre-established? For years, Parliament, the courts, and the government have debated and made shortterm decisions, but now the time has come to implement concrete regulations for the media. Some of my media colleagues or organisations may disagree with me, but the senior editors I have worked with—and the top national leaders I have known— have always emphasised ethical boundaries and codes of conduct. Yet many media houses and journalists today ignore the ethical standards once defined by editors or the Press Council. Citing American laws in the name of press freedom is common, and several organisations in the U.S. or Europe lament the state of media in India. But no one reminds them that, during Republican administrations in the U.S., numerous restrictions have often been imposed on the media. There, the media is openly divided along pro-government and opposition lines. Back in India, following the fake news reports, officials from both ministries swiftly held discussions to tackle the issue. The ministries are actively monitoring content uploaded to social media platforms and have issued directives to block objectionable content. Officials acknowledged that social media had been flooded with misleading posts. Consequently, the government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) factchecking unit also sprang into action to debunk viral claims. For example, one viral post falsely cited a supposed DRDO scientist claiming that BrahMos missiles had faulty components. The fact-check unit later clarified that no such person worked at DRDO. Another widely circulated claim stated that an Indian Rafale jet was shot down near Bahawalpur during Operation Sindoor, which the government dismissed as baseless. In reality, Pakistan has routinely used false propaganda against India’s military actions. This time, the digital revolution and social media turned misinformation into a weapon. It is reassuring that the Modi government and the military made consistent efforts to provide accurate and authentic information. The government also urged social media users to exercise restraint. The IT Ministry stated in a social media post, “Do not trust or share unverified information. For accurate updates, refer to official government sources.” Following the Pahalgam attack, as part of efforts to clamp down on incendiary content, the government banned several Pakistani YouTube channels like Dawn News and Geo News. Since then, multiple cyberattack attempts from across the border have been reported, prompting India’s key military and infrastructure institutions to remain on high alert. Sectors such as electricity, banking, finance, and telecommunications are being especially vigilant. A Parliamentary Standing Committee has asked the two main ministries responsible for overseeing information flow to provide details about the actions taken against social media platforms and influencers who appear to act against national interests in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack. Chaired by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, the committee noted that some social media influencers and platforms in India seem to be working against national interest, potentially inciting violence. The committee has written to the Ministries of Information & Broadcasting and Electronics & Information Technology, requesting details of actions considered under the IT Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to ban such platforms. Several social media handles have already been banned for allegedly posting content against national security interests. The committee will investigate the subject “Review of Mechanisms to Curb Fake News” and will hear testimonies from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and other stakeholders in the media industry. Notably, the PIB Fact Check Unit had already identified over 97 instances of fake news by March 2025. Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw informed the Lok Sabha that the ministry had identified 583 fake news cases in 2024, 557 in 2023, and 338 in 2022—totalling 1,575 cases since 2022. In 2025 alone, the PIB Fact Check Unit received around 5,200 queries, of which 1,811 were deemed actionable. Last November, the parliamentary committee chaired by Dubey summoned media organisations, including the News Broadcasters and Digital Association and the Editors Guild of India, to testify on the issue of curbing fake news. The committee had already decided to review mechanisms for combating fake news and emerging challenges associated with OTT platforms. However, last year the Bombay High Court struck down a section of the amended IT Rules, 2021, which had authorised the government to establish its own fact-checking unit. This unit had the power to label information as “fake,” “false,” or “misleading,” thereby jeopardising the safe harbour protections for social media intermediaries if they failed to remove such content. Media is expected to cooperate with the government in tackling challenges related to fake news, deepfakes, and doctored content. In December, Vaishnaw stated, “This is a major challenge facing societies worldwide—ensuring the accountability of social media, especially in the context of fake news and disinformation.” He added that establishing both social and legal accountability is crucial and that a major public consensus is needed for this. These are issues where freedom of expression intersects with accountability and the need to build a reliable news ecosystem. They deserve serious debate, and if Parliament agrees—and if there is broader societal consensus—a new law can be enacted. In this context, it’s worth noting that the number of newspapers and news channels in the UK and European countries is limited. In the UK, certain reports about the royal family still cannot be published. Even media tycoon Rupert Murdoch had to shut down a major tabloid under government pressure. Efforts to curtail press freedom have also occurred in the US for decades. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have routinely used the Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers and the sources of journalists. The U.S. Department of Justice charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under this law—an act that was once considered unthinkable: the successful criminalisation of routine newsgathering activities long thought to be protected by the First Amendment. This trend of criminalising journalism has also involved increased surveillance of reporters. If right-wing think tank The Heritage Foundation has its way, it could become even easier to monitor journalists and prosecute their sources. As part of its ‘Project 2025’ plan to control new media, the foundation proposes that the Justice Department use “all tools at its disposal” against whistleblowing. The foundation justifies actions against journalists and whistleblowers by arguing that intelligence personnel already have sufficient access to legitimate whistleblowing channels via Inspectors General and Congress. In 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland implemented a revised policy defining when the Justice Department may obtain a journalist’s communication records or compel them to testify. This move followed revelations that the Trump administration had sought email records of four New York Times journalists and seized phone records of three Washington Post reporters, as well as both phone and email records of a CNN reporter. All these seizures were part of investigations into classified leaks.