WhatsApp, facing a plea in Supreme Court seeking a ban on the launch of its payment system, fired back the petitioners, seeking SC scrutiny of the credibility and motivations of the 'think-tank' that had filed the plea.

The WhatsApp reply asserted that this was no occasion for any 'busybody' to intervene and superimpose their views. Whatsapp has argued that this is 'exactly the kind of petition' that needs to be dismissed at the very threshold.

WhatsApp’s affidavit came in response to a plea filed by a think tank, Good Governance Chambers. The plea in SC had alleged 'flagrant violations' of various regulatory norms. The plea had argued that acting against regulatory directives, Whatsapp had embedded its payment service with the messaging platform. The plea also submitted that both, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), had given preferential treatment to Whatsapp.

In its reply, WhatsApp has argued that the petitioner organization is trying to create barriers for Whatsapp, under the guise of enforcing fundamental rights. Whatsapp argued that the self-proclaimed "think tank" was formed less than 2 months before filing this PIL. It was also submitted that Good Governance Chambers has no history of advocacy of privacy and digital rights issues.

Whatsapp has also red-flagged how the same organisation has also moved the Competition Commission of India seeking identical reliefs – ban on the launch of WhatsApp Pay. WhatsApp argues the complaint before the CCI raised the same issues and arguments, was filed by the same law firm representing the think tank and that the complainant, till recently, shared the same address as the think tank in SC. WhatsApp points out how this disclosure has not yet been made by the petitioners, before the top court.

The response by the Facebook subsidiary also raises suggests a link between the think tank and one Sahil Baghla, who is facing trial in a Bitcoin-based, alleged Ponzi Scheme. WhatsApp affidavit submits that the domain name of the petitioner and the petitioner’s lawyers were registered by Sahil. WhatsApp argues that Sahil claims to be an employee of the firm representing the petitioner. WhatsApp also red flags how Sahil had posted a job listing on LinkedIn for a position with Good Governance Chambers. WhatsApp also highlighted how recent Facebook activity of Sahil featured posts featuring activities of the think-tank.

WhatsApp has urged the Supreme Court to consider the suitability of the petitioner before going into the merits of the allegations and issues raised in the PIL.

WhatsApp concludes by arguing that no violation of fundamental rights has been demonstrated by the petitioners.

First Published:Jun 5, 2020 2:04 PM IST