The Supreme Court of India on February 3 slammed WhatsApp and Meta over user data practices, warning that tech giants cannot compromise citizens’ right to privacy and indicating interim orders to curb data sharing while hearings continue.

The Supreme Court of India has stepped into one of the most significant digital privacy disputes of recent years, sharply reprimanding WhatsApp and its parent Meta Platforms Inc over their data‑sharing policies.

In a hearing that has captured national attention, Chief Justice Surya Kant and a three‑judge bench stressed that the right to privacy – held as a fundamental right by the Indian Constitution – cannot be subordinate to corporate data‑monetisation strategies.

According to multiple reports, the court warned that the companies must comply with Indian legal standards or consider exiting the Indian market.

This marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle involving technology, user rights, competition law and regulatory oversight – a fight with implications for millions of Indian users and the future of digital governance in the country.

Background: What Sparked the Legal Battle?

At the centre of the dispute is WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy update, which expanded data collection and sharing with Meta and its other platforms. The policy was widely criticised for its “take‑it‑or‑leave‑it” condition, whereby users had to accept comprehensive data sharing to continue using the service.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) took issue with the policy, ruling in November 2024 that the firm had abused its dominant market position by compelling users to surrender their data without meaningful choice, fining Meta ₹213.14 crore (roughly US $25.4 million) and imposing behavioural remedies, including a prohibition on data sharing for advertising.

WhatsApp and Meta challenged the CCI’s order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which in early 2025 modified parts of the directive and stayed the full ban on data sharing, while upholding the penalty. This set the stage for the current Supreme Court appeals.

What Happened in the Supreme Court Hearing?

On February 3, 2026, the Supreme Court heard consolidated appeals filed by WhatsApp and Meta against the NCLAT verdict and CCI findings. During proceedings, the bench was sharply critical of several aspects:

• Privacy Rights First: Chief Justice Surya Kant stated unequivocally that the right to privacy of Indian citizens cannot be compromised in the name of data sharing. The court highlighted that complex and opaque consent practices often misunderstand the practical realities of everyday users.
• Clarity of Consent: The bench noted that ordinary users – including those from rural areas or with limited digital literacy – are effectively unable to understand the implications of dense privacy policies. This raised questions about whether user consent in such contexts is genuinely informed and meaningful.
• Interim Measures: The court signalled that it would issue interim directions on February 9 and directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to be made a party to the case, indicating the broader policy and regulatory dimensions at play.

Several media reports noted that the court even told the tech giants they could “leave India” if they were unwilling to abide by Indian constitutional norms – a stark warning underscoring judicial resolve.

Why This Case Matters: Beyond the Headlines

This dispute is about more than one company’s practices – it raises foundational questions about digital rights, corporate accountability, competition and consumer protection in India’s increasingly connected society.

1. Privacy as a Constitutional Right

The Supreme Court’s firm statements reinforce India’s 2017 Right to Privacy judgement, which declared privacy part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. By applying this principle to digital data practices, the court is making clear that personal information – whether encrypted messages, metadata or behavioural analytics – is not a commodity corporations can freely harvest or share.

2. Consent and Informed Choice

One of the central issues is whether users truly have a choice when asked to consent to privacy policies that are lengthy and complex. This echoes global debates on digital consent practices, where the meaningfulness of “click‑to‑accept” models is increasingly challenged.

3. Competition Law Meets Privacy Protection

The case also highlights the intersection of competition law with data protection. The CCI found that WhatsApp’s policy – through its mandatory data sharing – amounted to abuse of dominance, a finding that has been upheld in part by the NCLAT. Whether such practices undermine fair competition by locking in users and blocking rivals is now part of the legal review in the Supreme Court.

4. Regulatory and Policy Implications

India’s legal architecture is evolving – with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and other regulations on the horizon – and this case could influence how privacy safeguards are structured and enforced. The court’s direction to include governmental agencies as parties hints at future legislation and enforcement mechanisms.

What Stakeholders Are Saying

• User advocates have applauded the court’s rigorous scrutiny, arguing that technology platforms must be held accountable for opaque policies that leverage user data for profit.
• Legal experts see the Supreme Court’s remarks as setting a precedent that could shape privacy jurisprudence and digital governance frameworks far beyond this case.
• Industry representatives warn that overly rigid data restrictions could affect business models built around data analytics and cross‑platform integration, arguing for balanced rules that uphold rights without stifling innovation.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

This ruling – even at the hearing stage – illustrates that digital platforms must earn public trust through transparent, legally compliant practices, not enforce opaque data collection norms under the guise of convenience or market dominance.

Upholding privacy safeguards fosters a healthy digital ecosystem where users feel secure without stifling innovation.