The Kerala High Court will soon decide an interim application filed by the State government seeking permission to send “Thank You” messages to contributors of the Chief Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF). The application arises in a case challenging the State’s alleged use of phone numbers from the SPARK database to send bulk WhatsApp messages.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas heard detailed arguments from Advocate General Gopalakrishna Kurup. The writ petition alleges that the State violated the privacy of government employees and judges by using phone numbers allegedly sourced from SPARK (Service Pay Roll Administrative Repository for Kerala).
State seeks permission; petitioners object
During the hearing, the State informed the Court that it had moved an application seeking permission to message CMDRF donors.
Senior Advocate George Poonthottam opposed the request and stated that he would file a formal objection. The Court noted the objection and indicated that it would pass orders on the interim application tomorrow.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas asked:
“That is given to the Chief Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund. What is wrong in the Chief Minister sending a thanks? Already messages have been sent? To how many persons? All employees have contributed?”
Counsel for the petitioners responded that government employees had contributed to the relief fund and the Government had already issued acknowledgements and receipts. He added that around 90% of employees had contributed, while others had also made voluntary contributions.
The Advocate General, however, maintained that “this is not SPARK.”
AG: Issue is whether the messages served an illegitimate purpose
The Advocate General argued that the real question is whether sending messages through the Kerala State IT Mission (KSITM) to persons listed in the SPARK database served an illegitimate purpose.
The petition alleges that the State transferred data from the Finance Department to the Chief Minister’s Office and used it to send messages.
The AG admitted that KSITM sent the messages after receiving instructions to contact data principals from the SPARK platform. However, he argued that KSITM functions as the State’s nodal agency for e-governance and that the messages were not sent for any illegal purpose.
He also contended that the State acts as the custodian of the data. Therefore, it cannot be said that the data was “lifted” from any particular department.
According to him, the Finance Department uses SPARK for salary functions, while other departments use the same data for administrative purposes such as Dearness Allowance (DA) matters.
Court questions scope of data use
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas questioned whether the Chief Minister could claim such communication as unrelated to government benefits.
He remarked:
“Benefits were not given by the Chief Minister. Normally, when communications are issued, they come from the government.”
The Advocate General responded that the Chief Minister cannot be separated from the State because he is the executive head of the government.
He also explained that SPARK functions as a comprehensive human resource management system for government employees. According to the State, the platform supports personnel administration and communication of official updates.
State explains WhatsApp messages sent in 2024
The Advocate General also referred to the State’s stand regarding messages sent in 2024.
According to the State, WhatsApp messages were sent after the Chief Minister announced a Dearness Allowance hike in the Legislative Assembly. The government claimed that the messages informed employees about the decision and encouraged them to continue their service.
The State described the communication as part of a legitimate employer–employee relationship.
KSITM platform and WhatsApp Business account
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also questioned how KSITM could display messages as coming from the Chief Minister’s Office.
He asked:
“You mined certain data… Today it could be one message, tomorrow it could be another message. Do you have the power to mine and send those messages?”
The Advocate General responded that only a “centre ID” representing the Chief Minister’s account appears in the messaging system.
He stated that KSITM operates under the Electronics and Information Technology Department and acts as the State’s e-governance agency. KSITM also manages the technological infrastructure for WhatsApp-based government communications.
According to the State, the government uses a WhatsApp Business account developed by KSITM to ensure timely communication and improve information dissemination.
Court raises privacy concerns
The Court raised concerns about unsolicited messages and data mining.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas asked why such unsolicited messages should be allowed. The Court also noted a pleading that members of the judiciary had received these messages.
The judge further asked what DA or HRA the State provides to members of the higher judiciary, highlighting concerns about inappropriate messaging.
The Advocate General then acknowledged that the system did not filter recipients. Messages were sent to all persons whose data existed in the SPARK database, without classification or categorisation.
Justice Bechu observed that such indiscriminate messaging may interfere with the right to privacy.
DPDP Act and Puttaswamy judgment cited
The Advocate General relied on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and cited the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India judgment on privacy.
Towards the end of the hearing, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas questioned how salary-related information reaches personal mobile numbers when such communication normally occurs through SPARK.
The Court indicated that a government officer could appear and explain the process of data handling. It then asked when the officer could assist the Court and scheduled further consideration for the next day.
Case details
The petition has been filed by Senior Advocate George Poonthottam along with Advocates Nisha George, A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, and Kavya Varma M.
Case Title: Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
