New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered a scathing and unprecedented rebuke to Meta Platforms Inc. and WhatsApp LLC, warning the tech giants that they must adhere to India’s Constitution or cease operations within its borders, while emphasizing the fundamental right to privacy of Indian citizens and condemning what it termed the exploitation of vulnerable users.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, made crucial and far-reaching observations regarding WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy, data-sharing practices with Meta group companies, and the systematic exploitation of Indian users through monopolistic practices.
The Court addressed the case involving appeals filed by Meta Platforms Inc. and WhatsApp LLC against a ₹213.14 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India for anti-competitive practices and privacy violations. The Court noted, “If you can’t follow our Constitution, leave India. We won’t allow citizens’ privacy to be compromised.”
Addressing specific concerns about the nature of user consent in the digital age, the Court observed, “The consent obtained by these platforms was effectively ‘manufactured consent,’ as users are often forced to accept terms to maintain access to essential communication services.”
The Court highlighted the concept of “take-it-or-leave-it” arrangements, stating, “WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy exploits Indian users through a take-it-or-leave-it arrangement that leaves consumers with no real choice but to surrender their privacy rights.”
Characterising the severity of the privacy violations, the Court observed that the company’s methods constitute a “decent way of committing theft on the privacy of the country” and represent a “mockery of constitutionalism.”
The Court emphasised the vulnerability of ordinary citizens across India’s diverse population, stating that ordinary citizens, such as street vendors or residents in remote areas, may not understand the “crafty language” used in complex privacy policies.
The Bench further highlighted the power imbalance inherent in digital platforms, observing, “Users have become ‘addicted’ to these platforms, creating a monopoly where consumers have no real choice but to comply with the platform’s terms, allowing for the commercial exploitation of ‘silent consumers’ who have ‘no voice.’”
In a pointed illustration of the real-world implications, the Court stated that even routine interactions, such as sending a doctor’s prescription through WhatsApp, could lead to targeted advertisements appearing within minutes, indicating that metadata footprints are being monetised without genuine user consent.
Addressing the inadequacy of technical explanations, the CJI challenged the tech giants’ counsel, asking whether their own domestic help would be able to comprehend the technical positions regarding data sharing.
In specific directives regarding immediate compliance, the Court instructed Meta and WhatsApp to file a categorical undertaking stating that they will not share user data.
Meta’s counsel submitted that the platform employs end-to-end encryption, which ensures that the content of messages remains private, that the service is provided free of charge to users, and that not all user data is shared with Meta group companies.
The respondent Competition Commission of India’s position was that the 2021 policy update allowed data sharing with Meta group companies for advertising and marketing purposes, creating anti-competitive conditions in the messaging market.
The legal background reveals that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the CCI’s penalty in late 2025, though it partially allowed advertising-related data sharing, provided users were given clear opt-out rights.
The Court noted the impleading of additional parties and has impleaded the Union of India as a respondent in the case and requested a counter-affidavit.
The Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on February 9, 2026, for the issuance of interim directions and consideration of the undertakings to be filed by the appellants.
Case Title: Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors.
