- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court issues notice to WhatsApp over new privacy policy You (WhatsApp and Facebook) maybe two or three trillion companies but people value their privacy more than money. It is our duty to protect their privacy, the Supreme Court bench observed The Supreme Court has issued notice to social media platform WhatsApp and its parent company Facebook over the WhatsApp's proposed new...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court issues notice to WhatsApp over new privacy policy
You (WhatsApp and Facebook) maybe two or three trillion companies but people value their privacy more than money. It is our duty to protect their privacy, the Supreme Court bench observed
The Supreme Court has issued notice to social media platform WhatsApp and its parent company Facebook over the WhatsApp's proposed new privacy policy.
A bench headed by Cheif Justice SA Bobde on 15 February 2021 gave the American tech giant four weeks to respond to the notice, putting on oath that the users' data collected by WhatsApp would not be shared with any third party.
The Apex Court decided to issue notice after hearing a plea that challenged the new privacy policy announced by WhatsApp in January this year.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar appeared on behalf of WhatsApp and Facebook respectively, while Shyam Divan represented petitioner Internet Freedom Foundation.
The petition seeks a ban on implementation of the new privacy policy of WhatsApp in India and apply the same privacy policy that applies to the people of the European Union region.
"In January, they (WhatsApp) have come up with a new privacy policy. One set of privacy standards apply to Europe and a different set of standards apply to Indians. This happens when the Personal Data Protection Bill is pending," the petitioner told the bench.
"We pray that privacy standards are not lowered for Indian users by WhatsApp... They be barred from sharing data with Facebook," Divan contended.
The SC bench expressed its concern on reports of comprising privacy of Indian citizens, especially the circuit of messages.
"You (WhatsApp and Facebook) maybe two or three trillion companies but people value their privacy more than money. It is our duty to protect their privacy," the bench said, adding "We're telling you what we heard and read. People think that if A sends a message to B and B to C. The circuit of messages is revealed to Facebook."
Counsels for WhatsApp and Facebook Sibal and Datar denied differential treatment between Europeans and Indians in its new privacy policy. Sibal argued that Europe has a special law (General Data Protection Regulations), which India doesn't have and the company will follow the law if Parliament makes it.
"You make a statement on oath. It can't be done by sharing data of Indians," the bench asked Sibal in response to his response.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Centre said that the companies cannot share data of users and data must be protected.
A Bill towards the Personal Data Protection law was introduced in the Parliament in 2019, which remains pending to date.