New Delhi: In a significant development within the Delhi High Court, WhatsApp, the globally renowned instant messaging platform, has issued a stern warning regarding its stance on compromising encryption. The platform’s representative, Advocate Tejas Karia, emphasized the paramount importance users place on the privacy and security safeguarded by WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption feature. During the court proceedings, Karia unequivocally asserted that any mandate to undermine encryption would inevitably lead WhatsApp to consider exiting the Indian market.
The legal arena of the Delhi High Court, presided over by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, witnessed the unfolding of petitions filed by WhatsApp and Meta (formerly Facebook). These petitions contested the legality of Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as reported by Bar and Bench.
Rule 4(2) of the aforementioned guidelines stipulates that significant social media intermediaries must facilitate the identification of the initial sender of information on their platforms upon court or competent authority orders. This rule has instigated a legal tug-of-war between tech giants and the Indian government, igniting concerns regarding privacy rights and data integrity.
Also Read | India | Supreme Court’s Verdict: Husband Has No Authority Over Wife’s ‘Stridhan’
Advocate Karia, representing WhatsApp, articulated in court today that compliance with this provision would necessitate the storage of vast volumes of messages over extended periods—an obligation unparalleled elsewhere in the world. According to Bar and Bench, he remarked, “We will have to keep a complete chain, and we don’t know which messages will be asked to be decrypted. It means millions and millions of messages will have to be stored for a number of years.”
Moreover, Karia underscored that the contested rule surpasses the purview of the parent Information Technology Act, which does not encompass encryption breaches.
Inquisitive about global precedents, the Bench inquired if similar laws exist elsewhere.
“Have these matters been addressed elsewhere in the world? Have you ever been compelled to divulge this information anywhere? Not even in South America?” the Bench queried.
To this, Karia responded, “No, not even in Brazil.”
Also Read | India’s Supreme Court Upholds Status Quo in Vote-Counting Process Amid Election Season
Concurrently, the counsel representing the Central Government argued that the rule assumes significance in cases of disseminating objectionable content, particularly concerning communal violence.
The Bench directed the matter to be listed for hearing on August 14, awaiting the transfer of additional petitions challenging various aspects of the 2021 IT Rules in compliance with a Supreme Court directive.
On March 22, the Supreme Court transferred a cluster of pleas from various high courts across India challenging the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to the Delhi High Court.
Numerous petitions on this matter were pending before different high courts, including those in Karnataka, Madras, Calcutta, Kerala, and Bombay.
