Today, on 3rd February, the Supreme Court criticised Meta over WhatsApp’s privacy policy, warning against exploitation of Indian users. Justice Surya Kant said, “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,”
NEW DELHI: Tech giant Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, faced strong criticism from the Supreme Court regarding the instant messaging platform’s privacy policy.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya emphasizing that the court would not tolerate the exploitation of Indian citizens stated,
“You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,”
There are three connected appeals before the Supreme Court one filed by Meta Platforms, another by WhatsApp, and the third by the Competition Commission of India all arising from and agreeing upon a specific finding of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The court was reviewing a plea concerning WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy, particularly the company law tribunal’s decision to uphold a Rs 213 crore fine imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
Additionally, there was a cross-appeal from the CCI regarding the sharing of user data for advertising purposes. The tribunal allowed this, ruling that there was no “abuse of power” by the company.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, criticized the “exploitative” policy concerning user data sharing for commercial purposes.
The Chief Justice retorted,
“If you can’t follow our Constitution, leave India. We won’t allow citizens’ privacy to be compromised.”
The Chief Justice of India made it unequivocally clear that no data sharing would be permitted under any circumstances, stressing that the right to privacy of Indian users cannot be compromised for commercial gain.
He said,
“It is clarified that no data is being shared with any agent or Meta business entity. The right to privacy of Indian users cannot be compromised in the name of commercial exploitation of data.”
The Court noted submissions that the NCLAT order merely aligns Indian consumers with protections available in other jurisdictions.
“The NCLAT order merely places Indian consumers on the same footing as consumers in other jurisdictions.”
The court raised specific concerns about the readability of the policy, questioning whether it could be understood by millions of impoverished and uneducated individuals in India.
Expressing doubt, the court asked,
“…a poor woman or a roadside vendor, or someone who only speaks Tamil… will they be able to understand?”
The Court also questioned whether users across rural India could realistically understand such policies.
“This is our simple query to you, Mr. Amitesh. You please ask your domestic help in the house, will they understand this policy which you want to apply pan India and on pan basis?”
He asked,
“A ruralized person sitting in a remote village of Tamil Nadu who only understands Tamil language. You send your all these detailed complicated language in English. How is he going to understand it? A person sitting in a remote Bihar village who understands poor Hindi.”
The counsel responded,
“We were asked to give newspaper ads by this court in all languages which we did. But anyway, I don’t want to go on that. Ultimately… We are willing to examine everything. We want to admit. But then during all this, we will not allow the right of any citizen of this country to be damaged or compromised.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned whether users were truly empowered to make informed decisions.
“Now, how will the users know of their right to opt out or be aware that there is a realistic decision-making position for them in this option, which is a part of the 247.2 directions? You say that you put up some newspaper advertisements. Who reads that? Who reads that?”
He further noted:
“The evidence collected by the DG and the commission was even after they gave us a strong opt-out choice. People were too afraid not to accept. Throughout the period, data sharing was not stopped. We did not challenge that.”
The Chief Justice shared his own experience as a reference point,
“If a message is sent to a doctor on WhatsApp… that you are feeling under the weather… and the doctor sends some medicine prescriptions, immediately you start seeing ads…”
In response, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Meta and WhatsApp, argued that all messages are “end-to-end encrypted,” meaning even the companies cannot access the content.
ALSO READ: Meta Challenges Rs 213.14 Crore Penalty By CCI Over WhatsApp Privacy Policy: NCLAT
During arguments, the Court expressed serious reservations about the practicality and transparency of the so-called “opt-out” mechanism.
Counsel argued,
“What do you mean by opt-out? Then opt-out is that you opt out to the country. You withdraw your facilities from here. Because the consumer has opt out. They’ve said so in the order of December. Twice with the consumer.”
The Chief Justice responded sharply,
“Commercially exploited, but I feel we are consumers, we are products. So we have that first danger of compromising the right to privacy, which is so zealously guarded in this country, and that data is exploited for purely for commercial considerations.”
Expressing deep concern over the complexity of Meta’s privacy policies, the CJI remarked,
“Where are you placed? Please show me your mobile or I will take my mobile and show that how this opt-out business is addressed. Nobody will be able to understand. And by now you do not know how millions of data you must have. This amounts to in a way, it’s a decent way of committing theft of the information of private information. We will not allow it to happen.”
The Bench directed that counter affidavits be filed within four weeks, rejoinders within two weeks thereafter, and indicated that the matter would then be fixed for final hearing.
However, the CJI issued a stern warning:
“We will not allow you to share a single word of your data. These things must be very clear. If you are ready to give an affidavit undertaking of your management, it’s fine. Otherwise we’ll dismiss it. No question of sharing data.”
ALSO READ: Bombay HC Cracks Down on Govt Charity Commissioner’s Defunct WebsiteAmid Blame Game
In November 2024, the CCI responded to the 2021 privacy update, asserting that WhatsApp, due to its dominant market position, was coercing users into accepting the new policy.
The CCI disapproved of WhatsApp informing users that continued access to its messaging services required permission to share data with other Meta platforms. Consequently, the Rs 213 crore penalty was imposed, which Rohatgi and Sibal informed the court had already been paid.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Meta, submitted that all documents were now on record and sought an early listing of the matter, citing its national importance.
He said,
“Now that all documents are on record, it is submitted that the matter be listed for hearing at an early date, as the issue involved is of considerable importance. With respect to the penalty, it has been paid in full, subject to the outcome of the appeal. The amount of Rs 213 crores has already been deposited.”
In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp appealed this order. In November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year moratorium on the sharing of data by WhatsApp, although it upheld the fine.
Case Title: WhatsApp, Meta Vs Competition Commission of India