
The Delhi High Court has been hearing WhatsApp's challenge to Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021 since 2021, which requires large messaging platforms to identify the 'first originator' of messages when…
The Delhi High Court has been hearing WhatsApp's challenge to Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021 since 2021, which requires large messaging platforms to identify the 'first originator' of messages when ordered by a court or government under Section 69 of the IT Act. WhatsApp argues that complying would break end-to-end encryption for all users, risking privacy. The European Court of Human Rights in February 2024 ruled in Podchasov v. Russia that compelling decryption of end-to-end messages violates privacy rights, as it weakens encryption for everyone. This ruling is now cited in the Indian case, though the government says it only seeks originator identity, not message content.

The ECHR accepted Telegram's technical argument that providing keys for some users would weaken encryption for all, and found Russia's law disproportionate. WhatsApp's petition claims that tracing originators requires attaching identifiers to every message, a universal tracking system. LiveLaw reports that the ECHR's reasoning supports WhatsApp's position, but the Delhi High Court must decide if Indian law's proportionality differs. The government itself uses encrypted communication for officials, raising questions about the fairness of denying citizens the same protection.
The government's argument that traceability is not decryption ignores technical reality: you cannot trace one message without tagging all. The ECHR ruling is clear that weakening encryption for all is disproportionate. India should not wait for a terror attack to test this. The test: will the government name a single case where traceability would have prevented an attack without compromising privacy? If not, it should drop the demand and let encryption stand.
Source: livelaw.in
This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.