TIACON 2025: To regulate or not to regulate, that was the question

The Trusted Information Alliance hosted its inaugural conference, TIACoN 2025 in New Delhi on 6 November 2025, which saw over 160 participants come together to address misinformation and fake news that continues to pose serious challenges to India's information ecosystem. While the Central Government had proposed the establishment of a Fact-Checking Unit, several states have already developed their own mechanisms to counter the spread of false or misleading information.

The panel titled “Is Regulation the answer? Examining Legal and Policy Frameworks to Tackle Misinformation” was moderated by India Today’s fact-checking editor and TIA governing council member Bala Krishna where they tried to answer the questions —“can regulatory interventions truly curb the misinformation epidemic? And how do we ensure that such measures do not undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression?”

The panel featured Apar Gupta, the founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, Iyan Karthikeyan, the mission director of the Tamil Nadu government’s Fact-Check Unit, and Rakesh Maheshwari, ex-senior director of Cyber Security and Data Governance at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

(From L to R) Bal Krishna, Rakesh Maheshwari, Apar Gupta and Iyan Karthikeyan

Here are the key-takeaways from our panel discussion:

• Defining “misinformation” remains contested. The absence of a universally accepted standard for what constitutes misinformation, especially in the case of state-run units, creates conflict that undermines the work of journalistic fact-checking organisations/teams.

• State-run fact-check units risk blurring the line between verification and censorship. When the authority to label content as “misinformation” rests with the same institutions that are active political actors, it creates a structural conflict of interest. This concentration of power heightens the risk of overreach, particularly during sensitive public events, and raises questions about how to safeguard fact-checking from becoming a tool of narrative control rather than public accountability.

• Content takedown trends point to significant state influence. Between March 2024 and June 2025, central and state agencies directed platforms to take down roughly 1,400 posts or accounts, with a majority of notices originating from the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre. This volume underscores the expanding role of state institutions in moderating online content.

• Government-run Fact-Checking Units (FCUs) operate under different incentives than independent organisations. There are structural differences in mandate, accountability, and editorial independence between private fact-checking organisations and state-run FCUs, which shapes how each approaches verification and public communication.

• Questions around accountability of government FCUs remain unresolved. There is a lack of standardisation in how government FCUs respond when questionable or misleading content originates from ruling political actors, and what safeguards exist to prevent misuse of fact-checking powers for political advantage.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored that India’s fact-checking landscape is entering a defining moment. As government-led FCUs expand their role in moderating online content, unresolved questions around standards, accountability, and conflicts of interest grow more urgent. Without clear guardrails, the power to define and police “misinformation” risks drifting away from transparency and toward narrative control. At the same time, the sharp differences between state-run and independent fact-checking models highlight the need for stronger safeguards, consistent processes, and greater public trust. Ensuring that verification strengthens rather than constrains democratic discourse will require coordinated efforts from platforms, policymakers, and independent fact-checkers alike.

Way Forward

• Establish clear, independent standards for defining misinformation

A shared, transparent framework which is crafted collaboratively with media, civil society, technologists, and legal experts can reduce ambiguity and prevent selective or politically motivated interpretations.

• Create safeguards to separate verification from state influence 

Embedding checks and balances, external oversight, and audit mechanisms can help ensure that fact-checking by government bodies does not slip into censorship or narrative control, especially during sensitive events.

• Strengthen accountability and transparency for government FCUs

Public reporting on takedown decisions, clear protocols for addressing misinformation from political actors, and standardised operating guidelines can help build trust and reduce conflicts of interest.