WhatsApp has informed the Delhi High Court that it may cease operations in India if compelled to compromise its end-to-end encryption, according to a recent report. The messaging service, owned by Meta, made this assertion during proceedings concerning its challenge to Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. This particular regulation mandates that social media intermediaries assist in identifying the originator of specific messages when ordered by a competent authority.
In statements reported by Bar and Bench, advocate Tejas Karia, representing WhatsApp, told a bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, “As a platform, we are saying, if we are told to break encryption, then WhatsApp goes.” Karia emphasized that users trust the platform due to its commitment to privacy and security, largely attributed to its end-to-end encryption protocol.
Karia specifically addressed Rule 4(2), which requires that “a significant social media intermediary providing services primarily in the nature of messaging shall enable the identification of the first originator of the information on its computer resource as may be required by a judicial order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction or an order passed under Section 69 of the Act by the Competent Authority.”
He further argued that compliance with this rule would necessitate WhatsApp to retain vast quantities of messages on its servers for several years, as the platform would not know in advance which messages could be subject to decryption requests. This requirement could place an additional burden on the platform’s cloud servers and potentially escalate operational costs. Karia noted that WhatsApp has not encountered similar requests for information storage in any other country worldwide.
On the other hand, Kirtiman Singh, the Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC), defended the necessity of having systems in place to trace certain messages on social media platforms. The Court recognized the need for a balance between the interests of both parties. The case is scheduled to resume on August 14.
