Here's a detailed report expanding on the Supreme Court proceedings involving Meta and WhatsApp's privacy policy, drawing from the reported court observations and background of the case.

The Supreme Court of India delivered a stern rebuke to Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, during a hearing on Tuesday. A bench presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant sharply criticised the tech giant's privacy practices, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise on Indian citizens' data privacy.

The court declared unequivocally, "You can't play with privacy... we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data." This came amid arguments over WhatsApp's controversial 2021 privacy policy update, which has been at the centre of legal battles for years.

The bench emphasised India's constitutional protections, with the Chief Justice stating, "If you can't follow our Constitution, leave India." He underscored that the court would not permit exploitation of the country's vast user base, many of whom rely on WhatsApp for daily communication.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, labelled the policy "exploitative" for enabling user data sharing for commercial advertising purposes. The court agreed, highlighting how such practices undermine trust in digital platforms.

Pointed observations were made about the policy's accessibility. The judges questioned whether it could be comprehended by millions of poor and uneducated Indians, including "a poor woman or a roadside vendor, or someone who only speaks Tamil."

The Chief Justice remarked, "Sometimes even we have difficulty understanding your policies." He challenged the notion of an 'opt-out' clause, asking how rural residents in Bihar could possibly grasp its implications.

This, he argued, amounted to "a way of committing theft of private information." The court refused to allow such opacity to prevail, prioritising user comprehension over corporate fine print.

To illustrate the real-world impact, the Chief Justice shared a personal anecdote. He described sending a message to a doctor about feeling unwell, receiving a prescription, and then immediately seeing targeted advertisements for medicines.

Such examples, he noted, reveal how user interactions are monetised without genuine consent, eroding privacy at every turn. The bench made it clear that end-to-end encryption—WhatsApp's key defence—does not excuse metadata sharing or behavioural profiling.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered that all messages remain end-to-end encrypted, preventing even the company from accessing content. They affirmed that the ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) had already been deposited.

However, the court remained unmoved, focusing on the broader implications of data dominance. WhatsApp's policy had mandated users to accept data-sharing with other Meta platforms to continue using core messaging features, a practice deemed coercive.

The case traces back to November 2024, when the CCI ruled that WhatsApp abused its dominant market position. With over 500 million users in India, the platform's leverage was seen as forcing unacceptable terms.

The penalty stemmed from this anti-competitive behaviour, particularly linking chat functionality to broader Facebook ecosystem data flows. Users faced account downgrading—losing access to chats—if they refused.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court. A cross-appeal by the CCI sought to curb data sharing for advertising, alleging it stifled competition.

November 2025 saw the company law tribunal intervene, upholding the fine but setting aside a five-year ban on data sharing. It ruled there was no 'abuse of power' in the sharing mechanism itself, prompting further appeals.

This latest hearing revives scrutiny on whether WhatsApp's model truly respects privacy or prioritises profits. The court's intervention signals a pivotal moment for regulating Big Tech in India.

Broader implications loom for other platforms. The emphasis on plain-language policies and constitutional compliance could reshape data governance, protecting vulnerable users from exploitative terms.

India's digital landscape, with its mix of urban tech-savvy users and rural masses, demands equitable safeguards. The Supreme Court's stance reinforces that no foreign entity can dictate terms at the expense of national interests.

As proceedings continue, Meta faces mounting pressure to overhaul its approach. Failure to align with Indian standards risks not just fines, but operational curbs in one of its largest markets.

Agencies