Supreme Court Slams WhatsApp, Meta Over "Mockery of Constitutionalism"

The Supreme Court has strongly criticized WhatsApp and Meta's data-sharing practices, calling their privacy policy a "mockery of constitutionalism." The Court questioned the validity of user consent obtained on a coercive "take it or leave it" basis, labeling it "manufactured consent." It raised concerns that opt-out mechanisms use "crafty language" incomprehensible to average citizens, making them silent victims. The Bench firmly asserted it would not allow any violation of the fundamental right to privacy in the country.

Key Points: SC Slams WhatsApp, Meta on Data Privacy, Calls Policy "Theft"

  • Court criticizes "take it or leave it" privacy policy
  • Calls user consent "manufactured consent"
  • Questions opt-out clarity for common users
  • Asserts right to privacy is non-negotiable
3 min read

Delhi: Supreme Court slams WhatsApp, Meta over data-sharing practices

Supreme Court criticizes WhatsApp & Meta's data-sharing as "mockery of constitutionalism," vows to protect citizen privacy from "manufactured consent."

"We will not allow to share a single piece of information. You can't play with the right to privacy in this country. - Chief Justice Surya Kant"

New Delhi, February 3

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over WhatsApp and Meta's data-sharing practices while hearing a batch of appeals arising from the Competition Commission of India's order imposing a Rs. 213.14 crore penalty on Meta for WhatsApp's 2021 "take it or leave it" privacy policy.

On November 4, 2025, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the CCI's penalty but partially allowed data sharing for advertising purposes, reversing a five-year ban imposed by the regulator. Subsequently, on December 15, 2025, a clarification was issued mandating that while advertising-related data sharing may continue, all data sharing, both advertising and non-advertising, must provide users with clear opt-out rights.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, while hearing appeals filed by WhatsApp and Meta, as well as a separate appeal by the CCI challenging one of the NCLAT findings, said:

"We will not allow to share a single piece of information. You can't play with the right to privacy in this country."

Calling the practice a "mockery of constitutionalism," the Court questioned how consent could be considered valid when users are effectively forced to accept the policy on a "take it or leave it" basis. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that what had been held against the companies was that the consent obtained was "manufactured consent."

The Bench also raised concerns about the effectiveness of opt-out mechanisms, noting that a street vendor or a person placed in a remote area in Tamil Nadu or in Bihar may not understand the "crafty language" used in privacy policies. The Court remarked that consumers were being commercially exploited and described silent consumers as victims of the system with "no voice".

The Court further observed that users have been made "addicted" on such platforms and that the real choice was not whether they were warned, but whether they were compelled to accept the terms or walk away from the service.

Emphasising that the right to privacy cannot be compromised, the Bench asserted that it would not allow the rights of any citizen to be violated.

"This is a decent way of committing theft on the privacy of the country. Right to privacy is so zealously protected in this country, we will not allow you to violate it", the CJI said.

The Court posted the matter for the purpose of issuing interim directions on February 9.

"On the joint request made by senior counsels, the Union of India is impleaded as respondents. Union may also file its counter affidavit", the Court said in its order.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
Good move by SC. But the penalty of 213 crore is peanuts for a company like Meta. They make that in a few hours. The real issue is the opt-out mechanism. It should be a simple, prominent toggle switch, not hidden in layers of menus. My mother in Patna will never find it.
D
David E
While I support user privacy, there's a practical side. These platforms are "free" because they run on advertising. If data sharing for ads is completely banned, will we have to start paying a subscription fee for WhatsApp? That would hurt millions of small businesses and families who rely on it.
A
Aditya G
"Manufactured consent" – Justice Bagchi hit the nail on the head! When an app becomes essential for school updates, banking OTPs, and rations, you don't have a choice. The Court's concern for the street vendor and remote user shows they understand the ground reality. Jai Hind.
S
Sneha F
I'm glad the Union of India is being made a party. The government needs to have a clear, strong data protection law. We can't rely on court cases every time. We need a proper Digital India framework that protects citizens without stifling innovation.
K
Karthik V
Respectfully, the Court's language is very strong, which is good for headlines. But the NCLAT had already allowed data sharing for ads with an opt-out. The Supreme Court seems to be questioning even that. We need a balanced solution, not a complete shutdown that might make services unusable.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50