Amidst the tussle between the Government of India and Whatsapp, the Delhi High Court has refused to stay a notice issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). It has further asked Whatsapp to furnish information in connection to the probe ordered in March.
Delhi High Court Bench Notes Additional Solicitor General’s Notice To Be Fair
As per the latest reports, bench of Justices Anup J. Bhambhani and Jasmeet Singh said that the they do not consider it’d be appropriate for them to stay an on-going operation of impugned notice dated June 4, 2021.
The bench noted that notice issued by the Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi has been fairly stated. They said that the notice was perfectly in line with the procedure as laid down by the status for moving ahead with the investigation.
ALSO READ: Whatsapp Takes Indian Government to High Court over User’s Privacy data
The bench further said that the notice has not been stayed by the division bench. That would further take more time for the report to be prepared.
CCI Decides To Look Into WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy
Back in January this year, the CCI decided to look into WhatsApp’s new privacy policy on the basis of news reports. Lekin submitted that the preparation of the reports for the same would take time, at least more time than the next bench hearing on July 9.
In April, both Facebook and Whatsapp had challenged an order passed by a single judge to dismiss the pleas against the probe. In the fresh applications received on Monday, the companies urged that the High Court should put a stay in CCI’s June 4, 2021 notice.
ALSO READ: Whatsapp Privacy Policy Part of Game Plan Over Trick Consent Accuses Centre
They further asked them to furnish information regarding WhatsApp’s new privacy policy. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi representing WhatsApp and Facebook sough stay on the notice on the fact that the last date to respond was Monday.
S Salve had submitted the privacy policy was already under challenge in the Supreme Court, and the Delhi High Court and the anti-trust regulator should not have intervened in the matter.
