The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s amendments to the guidelines for accreditation of journalists, put out with a view to regulate fake news, are so embarrassing that if I were Smriti Irani, I’d just wash my hands off the whole affair and say the release itself was fake news, circulated by a hacker perhaps. Or even cry Opposition conspiracy. Why these guidelines deserve to go into the garbage can is evident to anyone who’s had a go at reading them. But for those who haven’t, here are six reasons why they defy logic, reason, or intelligence and lack even that deliciously sinister quality one would expect in the correspondence that comes from a formidable adversary.

1. Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of Indian jurisprudence. The amended guidelines prove that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, however, is in no mood to subject itself to such exalted standards of legal protocol. According to the new rules, the minute a complaint against an accredited television or print journalist is received and then referred to regulators, his/her press accreditation is liable for suspension; till such time that the investigation is completed and the verdict is delivered in a stipulated period of 15 days. In other words, the ministry will summarily pronounce guilt until the Press Council of India (if it pertains to the print media) or the News Broadcasters Association (if it relates to the electronic media) proves that the journalist is innocent. Talk about turning something on its head!

2. But what about digital, you’d ask? Isn’t that where most of our fake news emanates? From websites like Postcard, for instance, whose co-founder Mahesh Vikram Hegde’s arrest by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) had Irani’s party colleagues come out in solidarity? Or the insidious army of politically-backed trolls and propagandists who penetrate Twitter and other impossible-to-regulate parts of the deep web? Well, the Internet hath no regulator argues Irani. In effect, the worst offenders and purveyors possibly of 90 per cent of what is deemed fake news will go scot-free. Yes, bizarre as that may sound, it’s true.

3. UNLESS…! Is this a precursor to something more insidious for news portals? Well, save a decision to ban free speech in this country (and I am not ruling that out any longer), it’s hard to imagine how a government that often makes fake claims can lead a combat against fake news online. Even if it had the inclination, it doesn’t have the tools. No one does. Fake news can’t really be fixed in an era where digital publishing tools have snatched the monopoly on truth away from the traditional media establishment.

4. So, this is basically yet another assault on the already emasculated mainstream media? Most journalists seem unequivocal in their belief that it indeed is. In the absence of an unambiguous definition of what constitutes fake news, and the very real possibility of flimsy, motivated complaints making their way to the PCI or the NBA, these decisions can become menacing tools to silence dissenting voices and harass journalists. That’s an undeniable worry.

5. Irani, of course, has dismissed such concerns saying that the veracity of a news article will be determined by the PCI and the NBA, both of whom are not controlled/operated by the government. While it may be true that these are independent bodies that provide the industry with a constructive framework to self-regulate, isn’t the government impinging upon their autonomy by passing such punitive orders? (An accreditation can be permanently cancelled if a journalist has, even mistakenly, reported news that may have been fake!)

6. Masking what is essentially a gag order under the pretext of curbing fake news only further exposes the government’s impotence in dealing with the actual menace. Because this move really only affects a tiny iota of the accredited Lutyens media whose contribution to fake news, or even news that’s anything more than official press statements, is negligible, to begin with. Threatening to strip them of their accreditation thus, is akin to mediating in a harmless fight between your kids, when there’s a furious mob pelting stones at your window.

Dangerous, misdirected, ineffective, vague & vacuous — it’s difficult to find a 300-word document that ticks all these boxes so effortlessly.

Also read: Fake-na Mana Hai: Do we need a law to counter #FakeNews?

Also read: PIB accreditation and what it’s worth