Supreme Court rejects plea for pan-India social media guidelines

The Supreme Court on Friday, 10 October, declined to entertain a petition seeking pan-India guidelines to regulate social media intermediaries regarding the suspension and blocking of accounts.

A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the petitioners to withdraw their plea, noting that they were free to seek remedies available under law before an appropriate forum.

The petitioners, who operate a clinic and a polydiagnostic centre, had approached the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that their WhatsApp account, which they had used to communicate with clients for over 10-12 years, had been blocked without reason. They sought guidelines ensuring due process, transparency, and proportionality for the suspension or blocking of accounts by social media platforms.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the petitioners on their fundamental right to access WhatsApp, observing that WhatsApp and other intermediaries are private entities, not the State, and thus direct writ petitions under Article 32 might not be maintainable.

The bench also noted that alternatives existed, including other communication platforms or indigenous messaging apps recently developed in India, which the petitioners could use to reach their clients.

The court suggested that the petitioners approach the relevant high court with their grievances or file a civil suit instead, emphasizing that the Supreme Court is not the forum for issuing general guidelines on private intermediaries.

The petition had highlighted concerns over the lack of transparency and opportunity to respond before accounts are blocked, raising wider questions about accountability and user rights on digital platforms.

The court’s decision underscores the legal distinction between state action and private entities in matters of social media governance, signaling that remedies for account suspension disputes may have to be sought through civil litigation or statutory mechanisms rather than constitutional writs.