<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to consider a plea for pan-India guidelines for governing social media intermediaries with respect to suspension and blocking of accounts.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked the petitioner, "What is your fundamental right to have access to WhatsApp?"</p><p>The bench asked the petitioners why they approached the apex court directly with a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. </p><p>The court noted that the petitioners may approach the high court with their grievances.</p><p>A counsel contended that petitioners’ WhatsApp, which they used to communicate with the customers, was blocked. </p>.Supreme Court gives Centre more time to respond to pleas on restoration of Jammu & Kashmir statehood.<p>The bench asked why WhatsApp of the petitioners was blocked and noted that there are other communication applications, which petitioners can use. The counsel said no reason was given to them.</p><p>The bench asked, “Is WhatsApp or the intermediary, a state?" </p><p>The counsel replied it is not. </p><p>The bench said that even a writ petition might not be maintainable before the high court and that petitioners may file a civil suit.</p><p>The counsel said the petitioners have a clinic and a poly diagnostic centre, and they were communicating with their clients through WhatsApp.</p><p>The bench observed that recently an indigenous messaging app has been developed, which they may use for communicating with their clients.</p><p>The petitioners had also sought pan-India guidelines "for governing the social media intermediaries with respect to suspension and blocking of account, ensuring due process, transparency and proportionality."</p><p>The bench told the two petitioners to withdraw the plea and told them that they were free to seek any other remedy available in law before an appropriate forum.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to consider a plea for pan-India guidelines for governing social media intermediaries with respect to suspension and blocking of accounts.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked the petitioner, "What is your fundamental right to have access to WhatsApp?"</p><p>The bench asked the petitioners why they approached the apex court directly with a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. </p><p>The court noted that the petitioners may approach the high court with their grievances.</p><p>A counsel contended that petitioners’ WhatsApp, which they used to communicate with the customers, was blocked. </p>.Supreme Court gives Centre more time to respond to pleas on restoration of Jammu & Kashmir statehood.<p>The bench asked why WhatsApp of the petitioners was blocked and noted that there are other communication applications, which petitioners can use. The counsel said no reason was given to them.</p><p>The bench asked, “Is WhatsApp or the intermediary, a state?" </p><p>The counsel replied it is not. </p><p>The bench said that even a writ petition might not be maintainable before the high court and that petitioners may file a civil suit.</p><p>The counsel said the petitioners have a clinic and a poly diagnostic centre, and they were communicating with their clients through WhatsApp.</p><p>The bench observed that recently an indigenous messaging app has been developed, which they may use for communicating with their clients.</p><p>The petitioners had also sought pan-India guidelines "for governing the social media intermediaries with respect to suspension and blocking of account, ensuring due process, transparency and proportionality."</p><p>The bench told the two petitioners to withdraw the plea and told them that they were free to seek any other remedy available in law before an appropriate forum.</p>
