New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has firmly stated that access to WhatsApp does not constitute a fundamental right, dismissing a petition that sought restoration of blocked accounts on the widely used messaging and video-calling platform. The decision came during a hearing before a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Petitioners, represented by senior counsel Mahalaxmi Pavani, argued that their WhatsApp accounts used extensively for professional communication with clients over the past 10–12 years had been blocked without explanation. Pavani stressed that the sudden restriction had brought their work at a clinic and a polydiagnostic centre to a standstill. She also requested pan-India guidelines to ensure transparency, due process, and proportionality in the suspension and blocking of social media accounts by intermediaries.
The bench questioned the petitioners’ stance, asking, “What is your fundamental right to have access to WhatsApp?” and highlighting that WhatsApp, as a private intermediary, does not constitute the state under Article 32 of the Constitution. Justice Mehta further noted that alternative communication tools exist, including indigenous applications such as Arattai, developed by Chennai-based Zoho Corporation. “There are other communication applications; you can use them. Recently, there's this indigenous app called 'Arattai', use that. (It is) made in India,” he remarked.
When questioned about the reason for the account block, the counsel admitted that the petitioners had received no explanation. The bench observed that a writ petition might not even be maintainable in such cases and clarified that the proper remedy could be a civil suit. Despite repeated requests from the petitioners’ lawyer to direct WhatsApp to restore access, the Supreme Court refused to issue any order in this regard.
Ultimately, the court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their plea and advised them to explore alternative legal remedies. The judgment reinforces the position that access to private platforms does not fall under fundamental rights while simultaneously encouraging the use of domestic messaging solutions like Arattai as viable alternatives for digital communication.
This ruling highlights the broader legal principle in India: private digital platforms operate independently, and users cannot invoke constitutional fundamental rights to demand access to such services. It also brings attention to the government’s push for promoting indigenous technology solutions amidst increasing reliance on global social media platforms.