Today, On 10th October, Supreme Court rejected a plea seeking guidelines on suspension and blocking of social media accounts, questioning the petitioner, “What is your fundamental right to have access to WhatsApp?” and refused to interfere in private platform regulations.
The Supreme Court declined to address a plea requesting nationwide guidelines for regulating social media intermediaries regarding the suspension and blocking of accounts.
The court permitted the two petitioners to withdraw their plea, advising them that they could pursue other legal remedies before an appropriate forum.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was informed by the petitioners’ counsel that their WhatsApp account, used for customer communication, had been blocked.
The bench remarked,
“There are other communication applications, you can use that,”
Also inquired about the reasons behind the account suspension.
The petitioners’ attorney noted that no explanation had been provided.
The bench questioned,
“What is your fundamental right to have access to WhatsApp?”
The Bench also asked why the petitioners approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The counsel explained that the petitioners, who operate a clinic and a polydiagnostic center, had relied on WhatsApp for client communication for the past 10-12 years.
The bench suggested that since an indigenous messaging app has recently been developed, the petitioners could use that for their communications. It also recommended that the petitioners bring their grievances to the high court.
The counsel reiterated the petition’s request for “pan-India guidelines for governing the social media intermediaries with respect to suspension and blocking of accounts, ensuring due process, transparency, and proportionality.”
They questioned how their WhatsApp account could be blocked without an opportunity to respond.
The bench queried,
“Is WhatsApp or the intermediary, a state?”
Upon the counsel’s confirmation that it was not, the bench observed that even a writ petition might not be appropriate before the high court and suggested that the petitioners consider filing a civil suit.