The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that access to WhatsApp, a private messaging platform, is not guaranteed under the Constitution as a fundamental right. This came in response to a petition by Dr. Raman Kundra, whose account was blocked by WhatsApp, and who argued that this violated her constitutional rights.
Details of the Case & Ruling
- The petitioner, a doctor, claimed she had used WhatsApp for over 10-12 years and that blocking her account affected both professional and personal communication.
- She filed a writ under Article 32 contending WhatsApp’s action violated her fundamental rights, including free speech, right to privacy, and right to communication.
- The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, asked: “What is your fundamental right to have access to WhatsApp?”
- The Court emphasized that WhatsApp is a private entity, and its users are bound by its terms of service. Access to private services is not a constitutional guarantee. mint
- The Court also suggested the petitioner could use alternative messaging apps, specifically Arattai, developed by Zoho, which has gained popularity in India.
Legal & Policy Implications
- Limits of fundamental rights in the digital domain: The judgment clarifies that constitutional rights (like speech, expression, privacy) don’t necessarily guarantee access to any particular private platform. Fundamental rights often protect against state action, not the policies of private companies.
- From public to private obligations: Private services are governed by their terms and conditions. Users can’t claim a constitutional right to demand service from private platforms beyond what those platforms’ rules permit.
- Alternative remedies: The Court indicated that civil or regulatory remedies are available — i.e. one can seek redress through contract law, consumer protection, data/privacy regulation, but not under Article 32 for mandatory access. mint
- Growth of indigenous alternatives: By suggesting Arattai, the Court nods to the growing ecosystem of local apps and perhaps the government’s push for self-reliant digital platforms.
Reaction & Wider Relevance
- The decision is being closely watched by digital rights advocates, tech policy experts, and users concerned about platform bans or account suspensions.
- It raises questions about how other apps’ terms, consumer rights and digital communication platforms will be treated under law.
- The ruling may have implications for future cases involving access, account suspensions, platform moderation, content removal etc.
