Measure Of Good Governance In Social Welfare State, Not Privacy Violation: Kerala High Court On WhatsApp Message By CM’s Office On DA Hike
The Court noted that dissemination of such information through official channels cannot be termed illegitimate or political in nature.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition alleging violation of privacy after government employees received WhatsApp messages regarding Dearness Allowance (DA) enhancement and restoration of House Building Advance (HBA), purportedly from the Chief Minister’s Office.
The Court observing that digital platforms are increasingly used for governance, held that dissemination of such information through official channels cannot be termed illegitimate or political in nature.
The Court after examining the content of the messages, found that they only informed employees about three aspects: enhancement of DA to 35%, the schedule for payment of arrears, and the reinstatement of the House Building Advance scheme. Such information, the Court held, directly related to the service conditions and financial benefits of government employees.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “It is evident that the nature of the message sent, relates to salary and other perquisites/benefits, which cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a political campaign to impute the message with a colour of illegality or as something done for an illegitimate purpose. The message that has been sent to the employees of the State as well as to persons whose data is kept in SPARK portal, relates to DA and HBA, which are not extrinsic to the services for which their names have been enrolled. The message can hence be regarded as a measure of informing the employees of the Government, the benefits rolled out relating to salary and other perquisites, which can be viewed as a measure of good governance in a social welfare State. Such a step cannot be branded as illegal or for any illegitimate purpose, even if elections are on the anvil”.
“…there is neither any material to indicate that any data had been transferred to the Chief Minister’s Office nor are there any particulars available to conclude that the Chief Minister or his Office had any access to such data, there is no merit in this writ petition”, the Bench concluded.
Senior Advocate George Poonthottam appeared for the petitioner and V. Manu, Special Govt. Pleader appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners had contended that the bulk messaging campaign illegally accessed personal mobile numbers of government employees and used them without consent on the eve of legislative assembly elections. They argued that such use of personal data for messaging from the Chief Minister’s Office violated the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
According to the petitioners, the mobile numbers were originally collected for official purposes such as salary crediting, but were allegedly processed without consent to disseminate what they termed political messaging highlighting the government’s achievements.
The State had opposed the plea, asserting that the allegations were based on assumptions without any technical evidence. It clarified that the messages were not sent from the Chief Minister’s Office database but through an official platform operated by the Kerala State Information Technology Mission (KSITM). The State further submitted that the communication merely informed employees about service benefits announced in the budget.
The Court examined the scope of the right to privacy as recognised in the landmark decision Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 and noted that informational and communicational privacy are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, it emphasised that privacy is not absolute and may be reasonably restricted when legitimate State interests are involved.
Furthermore, referring to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, observed that while many provisions of the law are yet to come into force, the statutory framework recognises that personal data held by the State may be processed for legitimate governmental purposes.
The Bench also remarked that although communications to the public are ordinarily issued in the name of the Government rather than the Chief Minister, the issue did not arise for determination in the present case due to lack of specific pleadings.
Cause Title: Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:21429]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Nisha George, George Poonthottam (Sr.), A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan. Kavya Varma M. M., Advocates.
Respondents: V. Manu, Spl. Govt. Pleader.