Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said, “The Indian government is committed to ensuring the right to privacy to all its citizens, but at the same time it is the responsibility of the government to maintain law and order and ensure national security.”
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) has called WhatsApp’s refusal to abide by the new IT rules as “blatant disobedience”, while it respects the right to privacy, is not an unlimited right and will come with appropriate restrictions.
The government was responding to WhatsApp’s lawsuit against the IT rules, which were filed in the Delhi High Court on 25 May, the last date for compliance with the new rules. Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said, “The Indian government is committed to ensuring the right to privacy to all its citizens, but at the same time it is the responsibility of the government to maintain law and order and ensure national security.”
“None of the measures proposed by India will affect the normal functioning of WhatsApp in any way and will not have any impact for ordinary users.” Describing the debate of end-to-end encryption as wrong, Prasad said, “Whether using encryption technology ensures the right to privacy or some other technology is completely within the scope of the social media intermediary.
Finding a technical solution Responsibility, whether through encryption or otherwise, happens both. ”WhatsApp’s core argument is that traceability will require it to track every single message and thus break its end-to-end encryption protocol. Will happen. The Government of India said in a press release that it believes that the ‘right to privacy’ is a fundamental right and is committed to ensuring it for its citizens.
However, it states that “according to all established judicial directives, no fundamental right, including the right to privacy, is absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions.” In its petition, WhatsApp has invoked the 2017 Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India case. To argue that the traceability provision is unconstitutional and against the fundamental right to privacy of the people as outlined by the Supreme Court ruling.