India’s Supreme Court recently decided against hearing a petition that called for uniform national guidelines on how social media companies should handle the suspension and blocking of user accounts.
The highest court permitted the two individuals who filed the petition to withdraw their case, advising them instead to seek other legal remedies through an appropriate forum.
During the proceedings, counsel representing the petitioners explained to Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that their WhatsApp accounts, which were essential for customer communication, had been blocked.
The Bench remarked, “There are other communication applications you can use,” and then questioned why the petitioners’ WhatsApp accounts were specifically blocked.
The petitioners’ lawyer stated that no reason for the blocking was provided to their clients.
The Court then questioned, “What fundamental right gives you access to WhatsApp?” It also asked why the petitioners had directly approached the Supreme Court with a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which is typically for enforcing fundamental rights.
The counsel elaborated that the petitioners, who operate a clinic and a polydiagnostic center, relied heavily on WhatsApp for client communication and had been using the platform for over a decade.
The Bench suggested that a recently developed indigenous messaging application could be an alternative for the petitioners to communicate with their clients.
Furthermore, the Court added that the petitioners could consider taking their complaints to the High Court.
The petitioners’ counsel highlighted that their plea specifically requested nationwide guidelines for social media platforms regarding account suspension and blocking, emphasizing the need for due process, transparency, and proportionality.
The lawyer also questioned how their WhatsApp accounts could be blocked without any prior notice or opportunity for them to respond.
In response, the Bench posed a critical question: “Is WhatsApp, or any social media intermediary, considered a ‘state’ entity?”
When the counsel conceded that it is not a state entity, the Bench noted that even a writ petition might not be admissible in the High Court under such circumstances.
Ultimately, the Bench suggested that the petitioners might find a more suitable remedy by filing a civil suit.