Delhi HC Tells WhatsApp Critics: If You Dislike Its Privacy Terms, Don't Use the App

On Monday, a lawyer stood before the Delhi High Court and asked it to stop WhatsApp's new privacy policy. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva's answer was blunt: the app is private, joining it is voluntary, and anyone unhappy with its terms can use something else.

The petitioner, himself a lawyer, has challenged the updated policy on constitutional grounds. His plea argues that it violates users' right to privacy. It also claims the policy gives WhatsApp full access into a user's online activity without any government supervision. The policy was due to take effect in February, but the rollout has since been deferred until May.

At the heart of the complaint is the choice users are given. Under the new policy, a user can accept it or leave the app. What a user cannot do is decline to have their data shared with other Facebook-owned apps or with third-party apps. The petitioner's counsel added a further grievance: users in European nations were offered the option to disagree with the policy, he said, while users in India were not.

The bench did not appear persuaded that the situation was as alarming as the petition suggested. Justice Sachdeva told the petitioner that if the terms and conditions of most mobile apps were read, "you would be surprised" at what users consent to. He pointed to a familiar example: "Even Google maps captures all your data and stores it," the court said. The court also said it could not understand what data, in the petitioner's account, would be leaked.

Still, the court did not dismiss the matter. It said the issue requires consideration and, citing a shortage of time on Monday, listed it for January 25. The central government also agreed with the court that the question needs to be analysed.

WhatsApp and Facebook were represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi. They told the court the plea was not maintainable and that many of the issues it raised had no foundation. Their central argument was about scope: private chat messages between family and friends would remain encrypted and could not be stored by WhatsApp, and that would not change under the new policy. According to the two companies, the change would affect only business chats on the platform.

So the two sides are describing the same policy in very different terms. The petitioner sees broad access to user activity and a take-it-or-leave-it choice. The companies describe a narrow change confined to business conversations. The court's remarks on Monday suggested skepticism toward the petition's framing, but it has not ruled on either account.

The next hearing is on January 25, when the court is expected to take the matter up again, with the central government also on record that the issue needs to be examined.