WhatsApp has told the Delhi High Court that the messaging platform will effectively shut down in India if it is forced to break message encryption. The Meta-owned company said that the end-to-end encryption protects user privacy by ensuring only the sender and recipient can access message content.
“As a platform, we are saying, if we are told to break encryption, then WhatsApp goes,” Tejas Karia, appearing for Whatsapp, told a Division Bench.Karia said that people use WhatsApp because of the privacy features that it offers. WhatsApp has more than 400 million users in India, making it the largest market for the platform.
“India (is) a country that’s at the forefront… You’re leading the world in terms of how people and businesses have embraced messaging,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had said in a virtual address at Meta’s annual event last year.
WhatsApp and Facebook parent company Meta are challenging the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, which requires them to trace chats and identify message originators. The companies argue that the law weakens encryption and violates user privacy protections under the Indian Constitution.
The messaging platform argued that the rules undermines encryption of content as well as the privacy of the users. It also violates fundamental rights of the users guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
“There is no such rule anywhere else in the world. Not even in Brazil. We will have to keep a complete chain and we don’t know which messages will be asked to be decrypted. It means millions and millions of messages will have to be stored for a number of years,” Karia said.

What the government has to say

However, Kirtiman Singh, appearing for the central government, defended the regulations, emphasising the need to trace message originators. Singh argued that such a mechanism is essential in today’s environment.
The Delhi High Court listed the petitions by WhatsApp and Meta for hearing on August 14. The bench said that privacy rights were not absolute and “somewhere balance has to be done.”