The Delhi High Court on Thursday heard WhatsApp’s plea challenging a rule by the Indian government that makes it obligatory for social media intermediaries requiring the messaging app to trace chats and make provisions to identify the originator of information to a court or other competent authority.
WhatsApp and its parent firm have refused to comply with Indian government orders. Counsel Tejas Karia, appearing for WhatsApp told the Division bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, ” As a platform, we are saying, if we are told to break encryption, then WhatsApp goes”. The court will hear the case on 14 August now. The Delhi High Court said, “Privacy rights were not absolute….balance needs to be done”.
WhatsApp vs Centre case
Messaging platforms WhatsApp and Meta (formerly known as Facebook) have filed a plea challenging India’s IT rules 2021 for social media intermediaries, requiring them to identify the first originator of information.
WhatsApp and its parent firm have challenged Information Technology Rule 4(2) of the 2021 IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) that compels “significant social media intermediaries” to “enable the identification of the first originator of the information” which may be required by a court order or other competent authority.
What is WhatsApp saying?
WhatsApp has unequivocally said it would not break its end-to-end encryption as it argues it would violate users’ privacy.
In its 2021 petition, the Meta-backed firm said the Indian government’s order on enabling the identification of the first originator of the information is a threat to its “end-to-end encryption” and “users’ privacies”. It said the traceability provision is against the “fundamental right to privacy”.
WhatsApp has urged the Delhi High Court to pronounce Rule 4(2) of the intermediary rule as unconstitutional. Besides, it has sought that no criminal liability be imposed on it for any alleged non-compliance with Rule 4(2).
What Indian govt saying?
The Centre argues that traceability to know the originator of information is significant to tackling harmful content like fake news and hate speech.
The government said that the law empowers it to expect such entities to create safe cyberspace and counter “illegal content”.
It said that Section 87 of the IT Act gives the power to formulate Rule 4(2) to curb fake news or “instigating” content which are a threat to national security or communal harmony.
