A lady doctor’s petition claiming her right to access WhatsApp as a fundamental right has been turned down by the Supreme Court of India. The court ruled that digital services run by private companies cannot be treated as constitutional entitlements, even if they are widely used for daily communication.

Petition over Blocked Account Rejected

The petitioner, Dr. Raman Kundra, had approached the Supreme Court after her WhatsApp account was blocked, contending that the platform was crucial for her professional and personal communication. However, the bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna found no merit in her argument, observing that users are bound by the company’s terms of service, which they accept voluntarily.

The judges stated that WhatsApp, being a private entity, operates outside the ambit of fundamental rights under the Constitution. The bench pointed out that if users face issues with such platforms, they must resort to remedies available under contractual or civil laws rather than approaching the Supreme Court directly under constitutional jurisdiction.

Court Suggests Using Alternative Apps

During the proceedings, the bench advised the petitioner to explore other messaging platforms instead of insisting on a constitutional right to WhatsApp access. Referring to Indian-made alternatives, Justice Khanna remarked, “You can use Arattai,” mentioning the Zoho-developed application as one of the options available for communication.

Senior advocate Mahalaxmi Pawni, representing the petitioner, later sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the court allowed. The order recorded that the petitioner is free to pursue any other remedy under existing legal frameworks before the appropriate forum.

No Fundamental Right to Private Services

Reiterating an important constitutional position, the Supreme Court clarified that fundamental rights can only be enforced against the state or its instrumentalities—not against private companies. The bench underlined that while digital communication is an integral part of modern life, it does not automatically confer a legal right to access specific private applications.

The court also dismissed arguments that the blocking of a WhatsApp account amounted to a violation of the right to free speech, noting that freedom of expression under Article 19 (1)(a) applies solely to state restrictions. Since WhatsApp’s actions emerged from its internal policies, they did not attract constitutional scrutiny.

Legal experts believe the judgment reaffirms the boundaries between individual digital freedoms and private contractual obligations, reminding users that services offered by tech companies operate under mutually agreed terms and conditions rather than constitutional protection.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share