When both WhatsApp numbers came back, the Bar Association President’s plea had nothing left to decide: the Madhya Pradesh High Court closed it without any further directions.
Jabalpur: Counsel for WhatsApp told the Madhya Pradesh High Court that both numbers of the President of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, whose WhatsApp accounts he had complained were blocked, had been restored and were working again. The Court then disposed of his writ petition [Mrigendra Singh v. Union of India and Others].
On October 15, 2026, Justice Vishal Mishra disposed of Writ Petition No. 42065 of 2026, recording that no further directions were required. The Court did not examine whether the blocking was justified, and did not go into the merits of the challenge.
Three hearings, then restoration
The petition was first heard on October 7, 2026. By October 12, Justice Mishra had allowed the Union’s counsel time to take instructions and had asked the petitioner to give a copy of the plea to the lawyer appearing for Meta, which owns WhatsApp. When the matter returned, counsel for WhatsApp LLC informed the Court that both numbers were back. The order records:
both WhatsApp account numbers of the petitioner are restored and WhatsApp is made functional now.
Given that, the Court held that “no further directions are required in the matter” and disposed of the petition.
The petitioner’s account
As the petition puts it, Mrigendra Singh had for several years used WhatsApp as his main business and professional handle, relying on it for instant communication in litigation, including coordinating filings and staying in touch with advocates and client representatives.
His number, he said, was blocked without notice. An in-app review request filed on August 23, 2026 did not fix the problem, and a second number he obtained was also restricted and suspended. A formal notice to WhatsApp on September 2, 2026 asked for restoration and technical disclosure, but, he said, neither restoration nor reasons followed. He further contended that he did not receive reasons within the timeline set by Rule 3(2) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021. These are the petitioner’s contentions, and the respondents’ response on the merits was never recorded.
Questions the disposal leaves unanswered
The individual dispute has ended, but the wider questions have not. The Court did not rule on why the accounts were blocked, on the grievance process under the 2021 Rules, or on whether a writ petition under Article 226 is the right remedy against a messaging platform. Because the disposal rested on restoration alone, the petitioner’s points on notice and reasons remain his contentions and were not adjudicated.
Case Title: Mrigendra Singh v. Union of India and Others [WP No. 42065 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Vishal Mishra, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal with Advocate Ghuncha Rasool for the petitioner; Advocate Sachin Jain for the Union of India; Advocates Swati Agarwal, Vaarish K. Sawlani and Abhijeet Awasthi for WhatsApp; Advocate Satyam Shukla for Meta