The Supreme Court raised questions about digital privacy and targeted advertising during a hearing that examined how platforms like WhatsApp generate revenue while claiming end-to-end encryption.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned how targeted advertising was even possible if digital interactions were not being analysed. Drawing a comparison with medical prescriptions, he asked how ads could be personalised if a doctor simply wrote “take Crocin” without specifying details.
Responding to the court, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said that WhatsApp could not read user messages. He stressed that private exchanges on the platform were encrypted and inaccessible, even to the company itself.
However, the court was told that advertising remained central to the platform’s business model. Advocate Samar Bansal told the bench that WhatsApp’s revenue was driven entirely by advertising. He argued that users themselves were effectively the product, adding that the service was free precisely because of this model.
The exchange highlighted a larger concern around how digital platforms monetise user behaviour while maintaining claims of privacy and encryption. While WhatsApp has consistently maintained that it cannot read personal messages, critics argue that data collected outside message content, such as usage patterns and metadata, may still enable targeted advertising.
The hearing reflects the judiciary’s growing scrutiny of how technology companies balance user privacy with commercial interests, especially as digital platforms play an increasingly central role in everyday communication.
The bench will now hear on the need for interim directions on 9 February.
