The Supreme Court has sent a strong and unambiguous message to WhatsApp and its parent company Meta on user data privacy. The top court has directed both companies to file a clear written affidavit stating that they will not share user data, failing which their petition may be dismissed outright.

Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant made it clear that user privacy is non-negotiable and that no commercial enterprise can function at the cost of citizens’ constitutional rights.

What is the case about?

The matter relates to a petition filed by Meta and WhatsApp challenging an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which upheld a ₹213 crore fine imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The CCI had penalised Meta for abuse of dominant position in the OTT messaging market, particularly over WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices.

Court demands written assurance on data sharing

During the hearing, the Supreme Court categorically directed WhatsApp and Meta to submit an affidavit assuring that no user data will be shared.
The bench warned that if such an affidavit is not filed, the petition will be dismissed.

The court emphasised that:

• Digital platforms must strictly comply with Indian data protection laws

• Corporate interests cannot override fundamental rights

• Any dilution of user privacy is unacceptable

Privacy policy called “confusing and misleading”

The Supreme Court also strongly criticised WhatsApp’s privacy policy, calling it complex and difficult for common users to understand.

CJI Surya Kant questioned:

• How an elderly woman

• A roadside vendor

• Or someone who only understands a regional language

would be able to grasp the implications of consent and data usage under such policies.

The bench stressed that informed consent is meaningless if users cannot understand what they are agreeing to.

Does personal data have monetary value?

During arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that personal data has monetary value.
Justice Bagchi, however, raised a critical legal question under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act:

“If there is no fixed price for the use and sharing of personal data, how can it be justified jurisprudentially?”

The court observed that data is routinely monetised through:

• Targeted advertising

• Trend analysis

• User profiling

and such practices must undergo strict constitutional and legal scrutiny.

Supreme Court’s clear stance

The bench made it clear that:

• Data privacy is now treated as a fundamental right

• Global tech companies must operate strictly within India’s constitutional framework

• If companies want to do business in India, they must respect Indian law and citizens’ rights