The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 seeking restoration of a blocked WhatsApp account, holding that there is no fundamental right to use the messaging app. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the maintainability of the plea and suggested users could opt for indigenous alternatives such as Arattai by Zoho. The petitioner, a doctor who relied on WhatsApp professionally, later withdrew the plea, with liberty to pursue civil or other legal remedies, amid wider discussions on digital platform accountability and user rights in India.
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Asha Bhosle against AI platforms and online sellers for cloning her voice and misusing her image without consent. The Court held this violated her personality and publicity rights and her moral rights under Section 38B of the Copyright Act. Defendants were restrained from using her identity and ordered to remove infringing content. Relying on constitutional privacy rights, moral rights, and passing off principles, the Court protected her control over her persona, reflecting a growing legal response to AI-based misuse of celebrity identities.
Access to the internet is now essential for exercising basic rights like free speech, information, and participation in democracy. Courts and international bodies, including the UN and the European Court of Human Rights, have recognized this. India’s Supreme Court in Amar Jain v. Union of India (2025) affirmed digital access as part of the right to life. Blanket shutdowns and vague censorship laws threaten freedoms and must meet legal tests of necessity and legitimacy. A rights-based digital framework—ensuring net neutrality, fair access, and transparent governance—is vital to protect democracy in the digital age.
The Karnataka High Court witnessed a dramatic moment when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta demonstrated how easily fake verified social media accounts can be created, exposing digital vulnerabilities. The hearing stems from X Corp’s challenge to government takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. Mehta argued that anonymity enables misinformation and cited AI-generated content to show regulatory gaps beyond Section 69A’s scope. The court acknowledged the risks of anonymous misuse, referencing the Proton Mail case. The matter, balancing free speech and online accountability, will continue on July 25 and could reshape India’s digital regulation framework.
