SC Rules WhatsApp Access Is Not a Fundamental Right

Supreme Court Rules WhatsApp Access Is Not a Fundamental Right, Suggests Use of Indian App Arattai

Court Dismisses Doctor’s Plea; Says Private Platforms Do Not Guarantee Constitutional Rights

Judges Highlight Alternatives Like Zoho’s Arattai for Digital Communication

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 13, 2025:

In a significant ruling that touches upon the intersection of technology, law, and individual rights, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that access to WhatsApp is not a fundamental right under the Constitution. The judgment came after a petition filed by a lady doctor, Dr. Raman Kundra, whose WhatsApp account had been blocked. She argued that the suspension of her account violated her fundamental rights, as the platform was essential for her professional and personal communication.

The Apex Court, however, dismissed her plea and observed that private digital platforms like WhatsApp cannot be equated with constitutionally protected rights. The bench further suggested that users who face such restrictions can explore alternative messaging platforms, including Arattai, an indigenous app developed by Zoho Corporation.

The Case in Detail

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, argued that WhatsApp’s decision to block her account was “arbitrary and violative of her fundamental rights.” She emphasized that the app had become indispensable for her medical practice, patient consultations, and daily communication.

The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Vikram Nath, and Sandeep Mehta, however, disagreed. The judges noted that WhatsApp is a private entity, and its services are governed by its own terms and conditions. Users voluntarily agree to these terms when they sign up, and therefore, the platform’s actions cannot be challenged as violations of constitutional rights.

The court stated:

“Access to private digital platforms such as WhatsApp is not a guaranteed right under the Constitution of India. Users are bound by the terms of service of the company.”

Why the Court Rejected the Plea

The Supreme Court’s reasoning rested on three key points:

Private vs. Public Rights
- Fundamental rights apply against the State, not private companies.
- WhatsApp, being a private service provider, does not fall under the purview of constitutional obligations.
Voluntary Agreement
- Users accept WhatsApp’s terms of service when creating an account.
- Any violation of these terms can lead to suspension or termination, and this is legally valid.
Availability of Alternatives
- The court highlighted that communication is not restricted to WhatsApp alone.
- Alternatives like Zoho’s Arattai, Signal, and Telegram are available for users.

The Arattai Angle

One of the most striking aspects of the judgment was the court’s suggestion to use Arattai, a homegrown messaging app developed by Zoho Corporation. The bench remarked, “You can use Arattai,” signalling judicial encouragement for indigenous digital platforms.

Arattai, which means “chat” in Tamil, was launched in 2021 as a secure, Indian alternative to WhatsApp. It offers features like:

End-to-end encrypted messaging
Group chats and video calls
File sharing
Data storage within India

By mentioning Arattai, the court indirectly promoted the idea of digital self-reliance and reduced dependence on foreign-owned platforms.

Broader Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has far-reaching consequences for digital rights, platform accountability, and user expectations.

Clarification on Digital Rights
- The judgment makes it clear that digital services offered by private companies are not fundamental rights.
- This prevents the misuse of constitutional provisions to challenge corporate policies.
Encouragement for Indian Startups
- By suggesting Arattai, the court has given a boost to Indian tech companies.
- This aligns with the government’s “Digital India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiatives.
User Awareness
- The case highlights the importance of reading and understanding terms of service.
- Users must recognize that platforms can suspend accounts if policies are violated.
Future Legal Precedents
- This case sets a precedent for future disputes involving private digital platforms.
- It may influence how courts handle cases related to account suspensions on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or X (formerly Twitter).

Expert Reactions

Legal experts have welcomed the ruling, saying it provides much-needed clarity.

Advocate Ramesh Gupta, a constitutional lawyer, said:
“The court has rightly drawn a line between state obligations and private company policies. This ensures that fundamental rights are not diluted or misapplied.”
Tech analysts believe the mention of Arattai could encourage more users to explore Indian alternatives. However, they also caution that user experience, reliability, and global reach will determine whether such apps can truly compete with WhatsApp.

Public Response

The ruling has sparked debate on social media. While some users support the court’s stance, arguing that no private company should be forced under constitutional obligations, others feel that WhatsApp’s dominance makes it almost a public utility, and therefore, stricter regulations may be needed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the plea that WhatsApp access is a fundamental right marks a turning point in India’s digital jurisprudence. By emphasizing that private platforms cannot be equated with constitutional guarantees, the court has drawn a clear boundary between state responsibility and corporate accountability.

At the same time, the suggestion to use Arattai reflects a subtle push towards digital sovereignty and indigenous innovation. For users, the message is clear: while digital platforms are powerful tools, they remain private services governed by their own rules.

As India continues to digitize rapidly, this ruling will likely shape future debates on digital rights, platform accountability, and the balance between user freedom and corporate control.