In a major development, the Meta-owned messaging app WhatsApp on Thursday informed the Delhi High Court that it will shut down its operation in India. Yes! you heard it right. During a hearing in Delhi High Court, WhatsApp informed that if it is forced to compromise its end-to-end encryption services then it will have no choice but to shut down its services in India. WhatsApp emphasised that end-to-end encryption is at the core of its services and safeguards user privacy by ensuring that only the sender and recipient can access the message content.
Tejas Karia, appearing for WhatsApp said, "As a platform, we are saying, if we are told to break encryption, then WhatsApp goes." Tejas further informed that WhatsApp is used due to its privacy features. With over 400 million users, India stands as WhatsApp’s largest market.
For the unversed, WhatsApp and its parent company, Meta, are challenging the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, which mandate the tracing of chats and identification of original messengers.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg previously lauded India’s adoption of messaging technologies during a virtual address at Meta’s annual event last year. “India (is) a country that’s at the forefront… You’re leading the world in terms of how people and businesses have embraced messaging,” he had said.
What is India's new IT Act?
Information Technology Rule 4(2) of the 2021 IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), mandates "significant social media intermediaries" to "enable the identification of the first originator of the information" which may be required by a court order or other competent authority.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 were announced by the Modi government on February 25, 2021, and required large social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp to comply with the latest norms.
WhatsApp through its petition has requested the Delhi High Court to declare Rule 4(2) of the intermediary rules as unconstitutional, ultra vires the IT Act, and illegal and sought that no criminal liability be imposed on it for any alleged non-compliance with Rule 4(2) which requires enabling the identification of the first originator of the information.