New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to hear a petition that sought nationwide guidelines for suspending or blocking social media accounts, emphasizing that private platforms are not public authorities and suggesting that petitioners seek alternate legal remedies.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the plea filed by two individuals who alleged their WhatsApp accounts had been deactivated without explanation, impacting their ability to communicate with clients for their clinic and diagnostic center.
Petitioners Directed to Withdraw Case
The apex court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the case, noting that they were free to pursue other legal avenues, including filing a civil suit or approaching an appropriate forum. The court questioned the validity of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution—meant for enforcement of fundamental rights—in a matter involving a private tech company.
“What Is Your Fundamental Right to Use WhatsApp?”
During the hearing, the bench questioned the very foundation of the plea, asking, “What is your fundamental right to access WhatsApp?”
It further inquired why the petitioners had come directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts. The petitioners’ lawyer argued that WhatsApp was essential to their business operations and had been used by them for over a decade to manage client communication.
However, the bench noted that alternative messaging platforms are available in the market, including locally developed apps, and suggested the petitioners shift to those.
No Due Process? Petitioners Raise Concern
The counsel for the petitioners contended that no prior notice or explanation was provided before their accounts were blocked. He emphasized the need for uniform regulations to ensure transparency and accountability from digital platforms when suspending or restricting user accounts.
The petition sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to direct the formulation of all-India guidelines governing how social media intermediaries handle account suspensions, citing concerns about arbitrary actions and lack of recourse for affected users.
Court: WhatsApp Not a Public Body
The bench was firm in its observation that WhatsApp is not a ‘State’ under Article 12, and hence, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against it.
“Is WhatsApp, or the intermediary, a state?” the court asked. When the lawyer conceded that it was not, the court said even the High Court would not be the correct forum for such a writ.
Instead, the judges noted that the petitioners could explore civil litigation if they felt wronged by the platform’s actions.
The Larger Debate on Platform Accountability
The case adds to ongoing discussions around the role and responsibility of digital intermediaries, especially as they handle sensitive user data and serve as communication lifelines for businesses and individuals alike.
Although the court refrained from laying down any directive in this instance, the matter reflects a growing demand for regulatory clarity over the power wielded by tech companies in managing user access.
For now, however, the top court has made it clear that access to a private messaging service does not qualify as a fundamental right and that legal remedies outside the constitutional framework may be more appropriate for such disputes.
