The questions submitted by the petitioners focused on issues relating to the right to privacy of communication and the need to regulate platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook to safeguard individuals’ privacy, among others. The petitioners’ counsel argued that WhatsApp and its parent company, Facebook had failed to respect users’ privacy rights and referred to WhatsApp’s policy, highlighting the ambiguity in some of the clauses. This emphasis on privacy comes in the backdrop of objections from Facebook’s counsel that the right to privacy could not be agitated before this Court, till it was authoritatively decided by a Constitution bench, and the Court’s own insistence to frame the issues in a different manner.
In the bench’s view, an important issue was that of choice and the freedom to choose. Counsel for Facebook’s immediate response to this was that aggrieved users were entitled to leave the service. However, Justice Dipak Mishra responded stating that freedom to choose contemplated affirmative choice, and not mere negative choice. Questions framed by the petitioners’ counsel were taken on record and the respondents’ counsel was also given liberty to file their propositions of law. However, the Court is yet to frame the questions which it will ultimately decide.
In addition to this, the Internet Freedom Foundation, an organisation that advocates for digital rights in India, filed an application to be impleaded in the present case. The senior counsel appearing for IFF argued that the privacy risks in the instant case arose from the sharing and use of metadata by the two companies. Their application was allowed by the Court.