New Delhi, Oct. 11 -- The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that there is no fundamental right to access a WhatsApp account, making it clear that the popular messaging platform cannot be held liable for violating constitutional rights as it is not a State actor. A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed a petition filed by two medical practitioners seeking restoration of their blocked account, observing that a writ petition invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 can be entertained only against the State or its instrumentalities, not against private companies. "What is your fundamental right to access WhatsApp? Is WhatsApp a State?" the bench asked senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, who appeared for petitioners Dr Raman Kundra and SN Kundra. When Pavani urged the court to direct WhatsApp to restore access to her clients' account, the bench declined to intervene, remarking that the petition was not maintainable. The judges noted the petitioners were free to explore other remedies before appropriate forums, such as filing a civil suit or approaching the high court. The petitioners, who run a clinic and poly-diagnostic centre, had sought restoration of their WhatsApp account blocked on September 13, 2025, and pan-India guidelines to regulate social media platforms. Dr Raman Kundra, a paediatrician, said she had been using WhatsApp for over a decade to communicate with patients and share health updates. The account was blocked without notice, reason, or an opportunity to be heard, the petition stated. She alleged the blocking was linked to her sharing messages "upholding the core values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution". A review request was rejected on September 14, with WhatsApp informing her the block would continue. HT reached out to WhatsApp but did not get a response till the time of print. The petition described WhatsApp's action as "high-handed, arbitrary, and unilateral," arguing it violated fundamental rights relating to equality, freedom of expression, and freedom to practise a profession. The blocking disrupted professional work, caused inconvenience to patients, and infringed upon the right to livelihood and free speech, it claimed. The petitioners contended that WhatsApp's "dominant market position" and its function as an essential communication service made its actions subject to judicial scrutiny....