Madhya Pradesh High Court Sends Instagram Encryption Challenge to Data Protection Board

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore directed a petitioner challenging Instagram’s proposed withdrawal of end to end encryption to first approach the statutory Data Protection Board constituted under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 before seeking constitutional remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi was hearing a plea filed by petitioner Parth Sharma, who appeared in person and questioned a communication attributed to Instagram regarding discontinuation of end to end encrypted messaging from May 8, 2026.

According to the petition, the platform’s notice indicated that such encrypted chats would no longer be supported and users may be required to download their data before the change took effect. The petitioner argued that the move effectively diluted the guarantee of privacy and confidentiality in digital communications.

Relying on the landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Retd vs Union of India, the petitioner contended that informational privacy forms an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be compromised by arbitrary policy changes or corporate decisions impacting millions of users.

The Court, however, refrained from examining the merits of the privacy challenge at this stage. Appearing for the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General Sunil Kumar Jain, assisted by advocate Devdeep Singh, submitted that the petition was premature and not maintainable without first invoking the remedies available under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

He specifically pointed to the statutory framework under Section 18 of the Act, which provides for the constitution of a Data Protection Board, and Section 27 delineating its functions and powers. The respondents argued that any grievance relating to personal data processing or alleged breaches must first be adjudicated by this specialised forum before the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Accepting the preliminary objection, the Bench directed the petitioner to approach the Board within seven days. It further ordered that if such a representation is filed, the Board shall decide the matter by a “reasoned and speaking order” after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within fifteen days, before May 6, 2026.

The Court also required that the decision of the Board be placed before it on the next date of hearing, thereby keeping the judicial door open while insisting on exhaustion of alternative remedies. “We direct the petitioner to approach the Board constituted under Section 18,” the order records, reflecting a clear preference for statutory adjudication at the first instance.

The matter has been listed for further consideration on May 6, 2026, by which time the Board’s decision is expected to be brought on record.

Case Title: Parth Sharma v. The Union of India Through Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Others

Date of Order: April 9, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi