The Supreme Court of India has strongly reprimanded Meta and WhatsApp over their 2021 privacy policy, warning the technology giant that it must respect Indian constitutional values or exit the country. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant criticised the policy for enabling commercial exploitation of user data without meaningful consent and declared that not “a single digit” of Indian citizens’ information can be shared unlawfully.
The case stems from appeals filed by WhatsApp and Meta against a January 2025 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order, which upheld a ₹213.14-crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for abusing market dominance.
The Solicitor General and CCI argued that the policy forces users into a “take-it-or-leave-it” arrangement, especially affecting vulnerable populations who cannot comprehend complex privacy terms. Meta, on the other hand, maintained that its data-sharing practices follow global norms and involve limited internal sharing.
The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings, making this case a crucial test for India’s evolving data protection framework.
A Sharp Judicial Rebuke to Global Tech Power
In unusually strong remarks, the Supreme Court bench questioned Meta’s approach to user privacy and warned that India will not tolerate any dilution of constitutional rights. Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear that digital platforms operating in the country must respect Indian laws and values.
“If you can’t follow our Constitution, then leave India. We won’t allow the privacy of any citizen to be compromised,” he observed during the hearing. The bench also rejected Meta’s argument that users had provided informed consent to the 2021 policy update.
Referring to ordinary Indians, the judges pointed out that millions of users including street vendors, rural citizens and elderly people are unable to understand complex legal language embedded in privacy agreements. The court asked how a poor fruit seller or small shopkeeper could possibly make a meaningful choice when confronted with technical terms about data sharing and metadata collection.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, described the policy as “exploitative” and argued that encrypted messaging does not prevent misuse of user metadata for commercial purposes. He told the court that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act must be interpreted to safeguard not just message content but also behavioural data, chat trends and other digital footprints.
The Competition Commission of India supported this view, stating that WhatsApp’s dominance in India’s messaging market allows it to impose unfair conditions on users. The bench expressed concern over reports that individuals received targeted advertisements for medicines or services soon after private conversations, raising serious doubts about how far user data is being monetised behind the scenes.
From Policy Update to Legal Battle
The roots of the dispute go back to January 2021, when WhatsApp introduced a new privacy policy requiring users to agree to expanded data sharing with Meta-owned companies as a condition to continue using the service.
Unlike earlier versions, the update left users with little real choice either accept the terms or lose access to the platform entirely. The move triggered widespread backlash across India, with concerns that personal chats, contact lists and behavioural patterns could be used for targeted advertising and commercial profiling.
Following an investigation, the CCI concluded that Meta and WhatsApp had abused their dominant position in the Indian market and imposed a penalty of ₹213.14 crore in November 2024. The regulator ruled that the mandatory nature of the policy violated competition norms and undermined user autonomy.
In November 2025, the NCLAT largely upheld the CCI’s findings and directed WhatsApp to introduce user-choice safeguards, including an opt-out mechanism for data sharing. Unhappy with this decision, Meta and WhatsApp approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the policy was lawful and consistent with international standards.
During the ongoing hearings, Meta’s counsel insisted that data sharing is limited to internal use within the parent company and does not compromise message encryption. However, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced, pointing out that India’s privacy regime is distinct from European or American frameworks and must be interpreted in the Indian social context. The judges repeatedly emphasised that commercial interests cannot override fundamental rights, especially in a country where digital literacy levels vary widely.
The Larger Question of Digital Rights and Power Imbalance
Beyond the immediate legal arguments, the case has opened up a broader debate on how global technology corporations operate in developing markets. With more than 500 million WhatsApp users in India, the platform has become an essential tool for communication, business and governance.
For many people, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, it is the primary gateway to the internet. This immense reach gives Meta extraordinary influence and with it, a responsibility to protect users from exploitation.
The Supreme Court has recognised this imbalance of power. By questioning the very concept of “consent” in digital contracts, the bench has highlighted an uncomfortable reality: most users agree to privacy policies not because they understand them, but because they have no real alternative.
When participation in modern life depends on a single app, choice becomes largely illusory. The court’s insistence on protecting metadata, behavioural patterns and targeted advertising practices signals that India may adopt a tougher stance on digital monopolies and data monetisation in the coming years.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This case goes far beyond a corporate penalty or a legal technicality it touches the everyday lives and rights of millions of Indians. Privacy in the digital age cannot remain a privilege reserved for those who understand legal jargon; it must be a basic guarantee available to every citizen. Technology companies benefit enormously from Indian markets, and with that benefit comes an ethical duty to be transparent, accountable and respectful of local laws. The Supreme Court’s firm stand reminds us that innovation should never come at the cost of dignity, autonomy or fairness.
At the same time, India must continue building robust, user-friendly data protection systems that empower people rather than confuse them. Policies should be written in simple language, consent must be genuine, and citizens should always have control over how their personal information is used. Constructive dialogue between regulators, companies and civil society is essential to create a digital ecosystem rooted in trust.
