The Bombay High Court on Tuesday urged the Central government to not notify the formation of Fact Check Units (FCUs), empowered under the new Information Technology Rules to identify and tag 'false' or 'fake' online news with respect to any activity of the Central government, till the third judge rendered an opinion on the split verdict of January 31. .Appearing for the Ministry of Electronics, Information and Technology (MeITY), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had earlier assured the Court that the formation of FCUs would not be notified till the judgment is pronounced.The said assurance, he said, would continue for ten more days from January 31.He, however, contended that he did not have instructions to extend the statement beyond ten days, but had instructions to oppose the petition..A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale, which gave a split verdict on the issue, was approached by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra today. Kamra's counsel sought clarification on whether the statement made by the SG would be extended..Justice Patel adjourned the matter to February 8, but advised SG Mehta to consider extending his statement out of courtesy to the third judge."If I had the misfortune to be the third judge, I would seriously be upset by lack of courtesy to given to me for enough time to come to grips what has come to this much time for the division bench. Our judges are under the most intolerable pressure. Our Chief Justice has not been able to identify a judge who is available. The working hours are beyond brutal. Someone will have to set aside their work and deal with this. I would be very upset if I am put under that kind of pressure," the judge said. .The division bench had on January 31 delivered a split verdict on the validity of amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, specifically Rule 3, which gives power to the Central government to form FCUs.While Justice Patel ruled in favour of the petitioners and struck down the provision, Justice Gokhale dismissed the petitions.The Court also directed the parties to approach the third judge with a substantive application seeking extension of time to notify the FCU..Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Kamra, pointed out that the third judge could only consider the point of difference of opinions and had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief. "The Union accepted that statement was continued 13 times till date. Several times to continue the Solicitor's convivence as he was tied up in important matters in the Supreme Court. Nobody was saying why the delay etc and the statement was honoured," he submitted..SG Mehta opposed this submission, claiming that after rendering the verdict, the division bench was not competent to decide this issue till the third judge decides on the reference. "Let the third judge take a call on the interim (relief). My extending the statement would not help the petitioners, it would harm the nation," he said. .The Court adjourned the issue to February 8 to decide on the question of continuing statement.