Facebook, WhatsApp had time to respond, the matter is related to the privacy policy

The Delhi High Court on Monday extended the deadline to submit responses to two notices issued by the Competition Commission of India (ICC) to Facebook and WhatsApp. CCI has ordered an investigation into WhatsApp’s new privacy policy. WhatsApp and Facebook have challenged the ICC notices dated June 4-8, 2021. A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Judge Jyoti Singh said the data protection bill has not yet been finalized, so the proceedings have been postponed until March 30.

Facebook, WhatsApp had time to respond, the matter is related to the privacy policy

The court was hearing appeals from Facebook and WhatsApp. In this the order of the sole judge was challenged. A single judge has dismissed the petition against the ICC order to investigate WhatsApp’s new privacy policy.
The Delhi High Court has extended until March 30 the deadline to present a response to the notifications issued by CCI to Facebook and WhatsApp on June 4 and 8. The court had previously given time to file a response to the notice and then extended the time.

Lead attorney Harish Salve, who appears on WhatsApp, argued that the data protection bill was tabled in Parliament and that the court had given time until October 11, 2021 to file a response to the notification, but after that could not be extended, because the matter could not be heard.

Additional Attorney General Aman Lekhi, who appeared for CCI, argued that the data protection bill is “irrelevant” to the dispute. This matter is not related to ‘Privacy’. It involves abuse of office and investigation in some cases. Meanwhile, Facebook India lawyer has submitted a request to represent himself as a party in the matter. However, the court asked him to file a new petition.

The matter is related to the appeal of Facebook and WhatsApp, in which the order of the single judge was challenged. A single judge has dismissed the petition against the ICC order to investigate WhatsApp’s new privacy policy. The court has refused to suspend the sole judge’s order.

Was this helpful?

0 / 0

Leave a Reply 0

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *