'Intrusion Of Privacy, How Did CMO Get Data?': Kerala High Court Questions Chief Minister's WhatsApp Messages To Persons

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (February 24) orally remarked that prima facie, there is an intrusion of privacy by the bulk messaging that was sent to government employees and judges through the Whatsapp business account of the Chief Minister's Office (CMO). 

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a plea alleging that the Chief Minister's Office (CMO) has violated the privacy of government employees and judges by illegally accessing their mobile phone numbers, email IDs and sending bulk messages as a form of election campaign.

An interim order was also passed granting the State time till Friday (February 27) to satisfy to the Court that the phone numbers were received legally and through proper channels. The State's undertaking that no similar messages would be sent till then was also recorded by the Court.

"You undertake that you will not circulate any further messages. When the matter is being seized by this Court, you cannot further circulate messages. After it has been brought to the notice of the Court and prima facie, I find that there is intrusion of privacy. Unless you satisfy the court that there is no intrusion, there is no data leakage, there is no violation of any of the rights of the individual, till then you have to withhold any further circulation...You undertake that you shall not circulate any such messages. Of course, it's an intrusion into the privacy...Suppose I don't want to receive any messages, you are forcing me to read a message which I don't want to. It's intruding into my privacy," the Court orally remarked.

The Court also questioned the State as to how the data was obtained, pointing to a specific averment in the plea that messages were sent to judges also:

"I found a pleading. Paragraph 5, 5th and 6th line. That is a very serious allegation. Which means the data is being leaked out...I pointed out paragraph 5, where did you get that information? Where did you get that details? How can it be sent to such persons?...It is not the type of message that you sent that matters, it is about the leakage of data especially to category of persons referred to paragraph 5, which means all those informations have been leaked out....How do you get this data? You can satisfy me...."

Senior Advocate George Poonthottam appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the messages were being sent from the Whatsapp business account of the Chief Minister's Office.

"How did the Chief Minister get this data? Then who sent this?...What is the protection of individual data if this is accessible for everyone?...The Chief Minister would not be managing the business account...If it is not the Chief Minister, then somebody else has accessed...What do you mean by this business account? Who manages this business account?...Please satisfy the court about these aspects. Till then you shall not circulate any such messages," Justice Bechu orally questioned.

The State submitted that only the beneficiaries of a particular scheme was sent the messages. However, the Court was not satisfied and asked the government to file an affidavit stating the same. The Court orally remarked:

"You are wrong. These details have been sent to other persons as well. I pointed out that paragraph. They are not persons who are receiving any benefits from the State government...If that allegation is correct, then they are not beneficiaries of the State Pay Revision. Where did you get that information? It is a very serious allegation if you have done that...Can an affidavit be filed that it was not sent to any other person who did not receive any benefit, only to persons who received benefit from the State government?...Till then, don't circulate any further or send any further messages...It is really alarming if it has actually been sent from the business account. But till then, you cannot send messages like this to everyone." 

The Court was then told that the information was received through KSITL (Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Ltd.) but the petitioners contended that they have not given consent to KSITL and it was not, at any rate, informed consent.

Referring to the nature of the messages that the petitioners in this case have received, the Court orally remarked that such messages cannot be circulated unless information was specifically sought for:

"Those are not messages that the citizens want to know. Not all citizens. Which citizen is interested to know about what government employee got Bhavana Nirmana advance?...Such a message cannot be sent to any person. You said you will file a statement by Thursday. Till Thursday, why can't you withhold?...This Court does not want you to disseminate or circulate a message like P2 to anyone who does not want it. These are not matters where they have said please give me the information. These are not information that people have asked. If people have asked, yes, you give the information. You are disseminating information which people may not want. Don't do that until you satisfy the Court that you got the information through proper channel, which you are entitled to get. How did you get the mobile phone numbers of every individual to whom it has been sent? No messages as nature shall be circulated till the next posting..."

The Court for the time being dispensed with notice to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who is arrayed as the 6th respondent. The special government pleader took notice on behalf of the other respondents.

Background

The petitioners have stated that they are aggrieved by the bulk messaging campaign received from the CMO, which was primarily targeting state government employees by highlighting the achievements of the government. According to them, the personal information of the state government employees, judicial officers and beneficiaries of government schemes was illegally accessed by the CMO.

They have stated that they are unsure of how the information was collected and it is assumed that there was illegal access of the information given through 'SPARK' (Service Pay Roll Administrative Repository for Kerala). SPARK is an e-governance centre digitising all HR related services and salary data of government employees.

The petition is moved by Advocates George Poonthottam (Sr.), Nisha George, A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan and Kavya Varma M.

Case No: WP(C) 7090/2026

Case Title: Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.