When Falsehood Becomes a Human Rights Issue

Katikala Rajesh on how fake news, half-truths and digital misinformation are beginning to affect justice, dignity and ordinary lives

Fake news is usually discussed as a problem of media credibility. Katikala Rajesh believes we need to start looking at it as a human rights problem.

Because misinformation does not always end with a wrong headline or a misleading WhatsApp forward. Sometimes it enters a police station. Sometimes it damages a career. Sometimes it frightens an elderly person into losing money. Sometimes it destroys a doctor's reputation. And sometimes a false narrative becomes powerful enough to interfere with a person's liberty, dignity or property.

Through cases he has worked on, Rajesh says he has seen a disturbing pattern: information is increasingly being mistaken for evidence, and opinion for fact.

The arrival of generative AI makes this challenge even more complicated. A person can now search a legal question, receive a confident-sounding answer, find a judgment involving vaguely similar circumstances and assume that the same conclusion applies to their own dispute. But justice does not work that way.

A Judgment Cannot Be Separated From Its Facts

One of the most distressing cases Rajesh handled involved a pregnant woman living in Australia who approached him for help after allegedly being threatened for money by a former friend.

According to the woman, she had been in a relationship in the past which had ended around three years earlier. She had since married, and her husband was unaware of that previous relationship. Knowing this, the friend allegedly began threatening her and demanding money, using information about her past relationship as a means of pressure.

The woman says the resulting fear, stress and emotional trauma became overwhelming. During this deeply distressing period, she underwent an abortion.

When she sought Katikala Rajesh's help, he intervened and pursued legal remedies against the friend in relation to the alleged threats and harassment.

What shocked Rajesh further, he says, was discovering how AI-generated legal interpretations and judgments from cases with entirely different facts were allegedly being relied upon to initiate complaints and proceedings against the woman.

For Rajesh, the case demonstrated an emerging danger: people can read a judgment, a news report about a judgment, or an AI-generated interpretation and mistakenly believe that it gives them a legal right to act against someone else.

But every case is different. A judgment involving one relationship cannot automatically determine the rights and liabilities arising from another. The history between the individuals, evidence, intention, chronology, alleged threats, financial transactions and surrounding circumstances all matter.

AI can help people locate and understand information. The media can make important judgments accessible to ordinary citizens. Neither, however, can replace proper legal interpretation or due process.

Rajesh fought for the woman's case to be considered on its own facts, rather than through assumptions created by unrelated judgments and information circulating online.

For him, this case became a powerful example of how misinformation can move beyond a screen and begin affecting a person's privacy, dignity, mental well-being and access to justice.

A judgment cannot be separated from its facts — and another person's judgment should never be mistaken for your own verdict.

When Google Becomes a Courtroom for Doctors

Rajesh encountered another version of the problem when a doctor was threatened and criticised over medicine prescribed to a patient.

According to Rajesh, members of the patient's family relied upon information found through Google to challenge the treatment, and negative claims about the doctor subsequently spread in the village.

Patients unquestionably have the right to question treatment, understand medicines and seek another medical opinion. But there is a difference between an informed patient and an internet verdict.

A search result does not know a patient's complete clinical history. Nor can information about the possible effects of a medicine automatically establish professional negligence.

Rajesh worked to communicate the doctor's experience, treatment and the actual circumstances to the community.

Here, misinformation threatened another human right that is easily overlooked: the right to dignity and reputation.

When an Allegation Travels Further Than the Truth

In another matter Rajesh handled, allegedly false cases against a visa aspirant contributed to his visa being cancelled, damaging his career prospects.

This illustrates how misinformation can cross institutional boundaries. An accusation may begin in a personal dispute but eventually appear in police records, background verification, immigration processes or online searches.

Even when the truth emerges later, the lost opportunity may never return.

A person's reputation is not an abstract concept. It can determine where they work, whether they travel and how society treats them.

The right to make a genuine complaint must always be protected. Equally, deliberately false accusations should never become instruments capable of destroying another person's future.

The Elderly Are Particularly Vulnerable

Rajesh has also encountered misinformation targeting elderly people in villages through mobile phones and digital financial systems.

A fraudulent caller may know enough personal information to appear genuine. A fake message may resemble communication from a bank. A misleading link can turn a smartphone into a doorway to someone's savings.

Rajesh pursued cyber complaints in such cases and worked for financial justice for affected people.

This is where the debate about fake news intersects directly with financial security and the protection of vulnerable citizens.

Digital India cannot merely be about access. It must also be about digital safety.

When Misinformation Threatens Property

In another intervention, an elderly couple's land was allegedly occupied illegally while false information was circulated about them, creating fear and confusion in the community.

Rajesh intervened and helped the couple pursue their rights and regain their property.

This case demonstrates why misinformation can sometimes be strategic.

A false narrative may be spread not simply because somebody believes it, but because discrediting a person can make it easier to overpower them.

For an elderly couple confronting people with greater physical, social or financial power, losing credibility within their own community can make defending their rights considerably harder.

Fake news in such circumstances is not merely a communication problem. It can become an instrument of exploitation.

The Human Right to Context

These cases involve completely different people and circumstances, but Rajesh sees a common thread.

The pregnant woman risked her dignity and access to justice. The doctor faced damage to professional reputation. The visa aspirant saw his career affected. Elderly citizens faced financial vulnerability. Another elderly couple faced the loss of property.

Behind each situation was a battle over what people believed to be true.

That should concern all of us.

Responsible journalism therefore matters more than ever.

A court may make an observation while deciding one particular dispute. A headline that removes the facts surrounding that observation can make it appear to be a universal declaration of law. It is not.

Journalists should report judgments fearlessly, but contextually. Media houses should distinguish allegations from established facts. Corrections should receive appropriate visibility. Police and institutions should resist allowing public narratives to substitute for investigation.

AI platforms and social media add another responsibility: citizens themselves must learn to verify before acting.

Truth Is Also a Form of Protection

Freedom of expression and responsible journalism are themselves fundamental to protecting human rights.

The answer to fake news can therefore never be censorship. The answer must be verification, context and accountability.

Rajesh's experiences point towards a larger reality: misinformation is no longer something that exists only on our screens.

It can enter our homes, hospitals, police stations, bank accounts, workplaces and courts.

And when that happens, the person harmed does not experience it as "fake news". They experience it as a lost job. A damaged reputation. A frozen opportunity. Lost savings. A threatened home. Fear. Humiliation. Or years spent trying to prove something that should never have been presented as fact.

Perhaps that is why our understanding of fake news must change.

The question is no longer simply whether information is true or false.

The question is: whose rights may be damaged if we fail to find out?