Supreme Court Directs WhatsApp To Widely Publicise That Users Aren't Bound To Accept Its 2021 Privacy Policy

In a letter written to the MeitY, Government of India, in 22.05.2021, WhatsApp had given the following undertaking -

“WhatsApp will not limit the functionality of how WhatsApp works in the coming weeks as previously planned. We will continue to display our update from time to time to people who have not yet accepted. In addition we will display the update whenever a user chooses relevant option features….We hope this approach reinforces the choice that people have in how they use WhatsApp. We will maintain this approach till the forthcoming Data Protection Bill comes into existence.”

In essence, it means, the WhatsApp users in India who have not yet accepted the latest privacy policy, i.e., 2021 policy, would not face any disruptions in using the application.

While passing the order, a Bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar noted that the publicity of the undertaking would benefit those who have not agreed to the terms of WhatsApp’s Privacy Policy of 2021. The Bench recorded the undertaking given in the letter dated 22.05.2021 and also recorded submission made by Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Counsel representing WhatsApp that it will abide by the terms of the letter which the Court extracted, till next date of hearing.

The Bench also directed WhatsApp to give publicity in 5 national newspapers on two occasions. It ought to be a full-page advertisement and should necessarily contain the undertaking carried out in the letter dated 22.05.2021.

The order was passed as an interim direction in a batch of petitions challenging the 2016 privacy policy of WhatsApp. As the Bench was apprised that a new Bill would be introduced in the Parliament in the second half of the Budget session, it was implored to consider if the matter should be deferred till the time the Bill is deliberated upon by the legislature. Though the Bench seemed to be inclined to continue with the hearing, the Sr. Counsels for Meta, WhatsApp apprised it that the hearing in the matter would be an elaborate one would take some considerable amount of time. Considering all these aspects, the Bench decided not to go ahead with the final hearing of the matter. However, at the request of Sr. Advocate, Mr. Divan, appearing for the petitioners and Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, appearing on behalf of the Internet Freedom Foundation (intervenor), agreed to consider the application for interim relief.

Case : Karmanya Singh Sareen and another versus Union of India and others | SLP(c) 804/2017

Live-thread of today's hearing :

Click Here To Read/Download Order