The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday gave a strong warning to WhatsApp and its parent company Meta Platforms over the way they handle users’ private data. The court said it would not allow citizens’ right to privacy to be compromised for the business interests of a multinational corporation. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant told the companies that they cannot play with the right of privacy of Indian citizens and made it clear that the issue was serious enough to require detailed orders, which will be passed on February 10.

During the hearing, the court sharply criticised the so-called “take it or leave it” privacy policy that WhatsApp introduced in 2021, under which users must agree to share their data with Meta group companies in order to continue using the messaging service. The bench said that this form of consent, often presented in complex legal language, does not truly give users a meaningful choice.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said, “We will not allow you to share even a single information, you cannot play with the rights of this country,” and added, “You cannot violate the right of privacy of citizens.” He also questioned whether ordinary people, including street vendors and those in remote areas, really understand the privacy terms buried in lengthy documents, saying, “The right to privacy is so zealously guarded in this country, and the kind of language you use, so cleverly crafted, even the street vendor will not understand.”

The bench noted that WhatsApp’s privacy terms were “so cleverly crafted” that a common person might not understand them, and described the framework for data sharing as unacceptable. The Chief Justice remarked that it seemed like “a decent way of committing theft of the private information” and that the court would not allow it.

Justice J. Bagchi, one of the other judges on the bench, also expressed concern about whether users were genuinely informed about what they were agreeing to. He pointed out that while platforms often send in-app messages to users, when it came to opt-out choices, they rely on newspaper notices that most people do not read.

The Solicitor General of India told the court that the choice offered to users by WhatsApp was effectively “take it or leave it,” a point the bench flagged as problematic. The court indicated that user data could not be shared under the guise of consent or opt-out mechanisms if users did not have a real choice.

The hearing came as part of appeals filed by Meta and WhatsApp against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had upheld a Rs 213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The CCI had found that WhatsApp’s privacy policy, which required users to share their data with Meta entities, was an abuse of dominance in the OTT messaging market and had imposed a penalty for this reason.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Meta and WhatsApp, informed the Supreme Court that three appeals were before it—two by Meta and WhatsApp and one by the CCI. He also stated that the penalty amount had been deposited in full, subject to the outcome of the appeals, and that the CCI had not challenged an earlier January 25 order.

The court directed that the appeals be listed for final hearing before a three-judge bench, and that counter-appeals to the appeals be filed within four weeks. It also ordered that the penalty deposited by Meta should not be withdrawn until further directions.

The Chief Justice questioned the nature of the consent claimed by WhatsApp, asking, “What is the choice? The choice is that even if you walk out of the WhatsApp facility we will share your data?” He added, “Either you give an undertaking… we will not allow you to share a single word of the data.”

The Supreme Court made it clear that any commercial venture, including major tech platforms, cannot operate at the cost of the rights of the people of this country. The judges emphasised that they would examine both the value of the data being shared and the ways in which user behaviour was being monetised.

The bench’s stern remarks highlight the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the fundamental right to privacy of Indian citizens against what it views as exploitative practices by powerful technology companies.