Supreme Court Rejects Doctor’s Plea: Using WhatsApp Not a Fundamental Right

The ruling clarifies that private digital platforms like WhatsApp are not bound by constitutional rights, urging users to explore alternatives like Zoho’s Arattai
An image of a courtroom gavel.
The court emphasized that whatsApp, being a private entity, reserves the right to manage its platform and enforce its policies. KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA/Pexels
Published on
Updated on

In a major ruling, the Supreme Court of India has declared that using WhatsApp is not a fundamental right under the Constitution. The decision came after a lady doctor claimed that being blocked from the messaging platform violated her right to communicate and access digital services.

Dr. Raman Kundra moved the Supreme Court after her WhatsApp account was blocked, claiming that the app was vital.

The court, however, clarified that private digital platforms are not covered under constitutionally protected rights.

The Case and the Court’s View

The petition filed by Dr. Raman Kundra, argued that losing access to WhatsApp disrupted her professional and personal communications. She maintained that the app had become essential to daily life, making access to it a constitutional matter.

Dr. Kundra shared that she had been using WhatsApp for more than ten years, depending on it to stay in touch with her patients and professional network.

According to filings, her WhatsApp account was suspended on September 13, 2025, without prior notice or explanation. When she sought a review, WhatsApp responded on September 14, 2025 that the account would remain blocked.

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani represented Dr. Kundra before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, seeking direction from the Supreme Court.

However, the Supreme Court bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna disagreed, noting that a user’s relationship with WhatsApp is contractual, not constitutional.

The court emphasized that whatsApp, being a private entity, reserves the right to manage its platform and enforce its policies. It clarified that no individual can claim fundamental rights over a private company’s service.

It also observed that if grievances arise, the remedy lies in civil or regulatory channels rather than constitutional writs.

An image of a phone screen with whatsapp logo.
During the hearing, the judges suggested that the petitioner could simply use an alternative messaging app. Anton/Pexels

Alternative Suggested: Arattai

During the hearing, the judges suggested that the petitioner could simply use an alternative messaging app. Referring to Zoho’s Arattai, the court remarked, “You can use Arattai.” The app, developed by the Indian software company Zoho, has gained attention as a homegrown messaging platform promoting data privacy and security.

Arattai offers messaging, media sharing, and group chat features similar to WhatsApp. It was launched as part of India’s push for self-reliance in technology and aims to provide users with a secure, ad-free communication experience.

The app has reportedly crossed millions of downloads in India.

(Rh/Eth/ARC/MSM)

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
Medbound Times
www.medboundtimes.com