file photo

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday warned popular messaging platform WhatsApp to completely ban sharing of users’ personal data. This comes as Mark Zuckerberg’s giant company is violating privacy rights to exploit and commercialize data, calling the user’s consent a fake transaction and rejecting the latter’s defense because he didn’t have the card.Addressing an appeal by WhatsApp, which is also owned by Facebook, and its parent company Meta, challenging the NCLAT decision that upheld the Competition Commission’s finding of abuse of dominant position against the social media giant, a bench of Justices CJI Surya Kant, Joymarya Bagki and Vipul M. Pancholi severely reprimanded the judgment for violating the privacy rights of Indian citizens.

“You have a complete monopoly in this area. What choice do you give your users? A shared consent agreement is like an agreement between a lion and a lamb: either you agree to share your personal data or you withdraw from the WhatsApp service,” the court said.“We will not allow you to share a single word of personal data collected from your messages. This must be made clear to you. If you are ready to file an affidavit addressing this, we will hear you. If not, we will dismiss the appeal,” the CJI repeatedly warned.WhatsApp and Meta, through senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Sibal, tried to argue that the data was shared after getting consent from users and that the messages were encrypted in such a way that they could not be accessed by WhatsApp.SC asks WA how user privacy can be violated in this wayThe SC posted the WhatsApp case for hearing on February 9 and also asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to submit a response.The hearing was peppered with scathing criticism from the court, which said: “There’s no question about sharing data. How can you violate user privacy like this? You’re sharing data with Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook will be sold to another company and you’ll be transferring your entire data.”When Sibal said that data is shared with users’ consent and users are given the option to opt out, CJI Kant asked, “What does opt-out mean? What options are users given? “How would a vegetable vendor or a rickshaw driver or a rural person understand your terms and conditions and decide to opt out? The language used in the terms and conditions is so well-crafted that even some of us (judges) would not be able to understand it,” he asked.”A series of questions followed: “All such terms and conditions need to be looked at from the perspective of the average user in this country. How many users understand the legal obligations you impose? If people don’t understand those terms, what’s the problem with opting out? Can you tell me from your phone how this opt-out term works?”The CJI said, “By now it must have shared the personal data of millions of users…This is a decent way to commit identity theft. We will not allow that to happen…otherwise you will opt out of the country and withdraw your services. ”Attorney General Tushar Mehta said: “Our personal data, personal data, is not only sold but also commercially exploited, turning users into mere commodities.”The CJI said: “That’s the point. Selling data violates the right to privacy. Privacy is guarded very zealously in this country and data is being misused for purely commercial purposes.”Rohatgi referred to Karmanya Singh’s pending petition challenging WhatsApp’s privacy policy and persuaded the court to link the issue with the case.But the court ignored that, saying, “Our simple question is to ask whether your domestic helper understands your privacy policy. That is not a problem for the educated masses. The problem is for the vast majority who do not understand these and cannot understand the consequences.”Mehta said users were given a choice to either consent or opt out of the messaging service. Judge Bagchi said the case against the platforms is that the consents they obtained were fabricated.“We will investigate this incident from all aspects. During this time, we will not allow the privacy of the people to be violated in any way,” the CJI said. Rohatgi said this was tantamount to dismissing the appeal, even though the law gave platforms 18 months to become compliant by May 2027.When Mr. Sibal said that WhatsApp’s service was free, Justice Bagki said, “Don’t say it’s free. What are hidden charges? All siled data about individuals has value, regardless of privacy. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act only deals with privacy aspects. I would like to consider what data rental sharing is. We are concerned that our behavioral trends and trends could be exploited and monetized, which could then be used by your parent company to gain advantage in online advertising.”Rohatgi said WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted around the world. “I think that around the world, judicial authorities need to exercise more intensive and innovative oversight of these companies,” Judge Bagke said.“What you are providing is not a social service. You can earn a legitimate income. But your commercial ventures must not come at the expense of the rights of Indian citizens,” the CJI said.