Using WhatsApp Is Not a Fundamental Right, Says Supreme Court of India

New Delhi:
The Supreme Court of India has made it clear that using WhatsApp is not a fundamental right. Dismissing a petition filed by a woman doctor, the apex court stated that access to a private digital platform like WhatsApp does not fall under constitutionally protected rights.

The petitioner, Dr. Raman Kundra, had approached the Supreme Court after her WhatsApp account was blocked, claiming that the platform was essential for both her professional and personal communication. She argued that restricting her access infringed upon her rights to free speech and livelihood.

However, a bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna rejected the plea, stating that WhatsApp is a private company, and its users are subject to its terms and conditions. The court clarified that individuals cannot claim a constitutional right to access or use services provided by private entities.

During the hearing, the bench remarked that Dr. Kundra could use alternative messaging applications, such as ‘Arattai’ — an app developed by Zoho Corporation. “You can use Arattai,” the bench observed, underlining that there are multiple options available for communication beyond WhatsApp.

Key Court Observations:

WhatsApp is a private platform, not a public utility governed by constitutional guarantees.

The right to use a private messaging service is not a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

Users are bound by the platform’s policies and terms of service, and violating them can lead to account restrictions.

Alternative apps are available, and users cannot demand reinstatement of their accounts as a legal right.

Court’s Stand on Digital Platforms:

The Supreme Court emphasized that while digital communication plays an important role in modern life, private companies are not constitutionally obligated to provide access to their services. The court noted that users voluntarily agree to the terms of private platforms like WhatsApp, and therefore cannot seek constitutional protection when those terms are enforced.

This ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the limits of digital rights in India, clarifying that constitutional protections apply to state actions, not to private corporations offering digital services.