Proton AG challenges order to block Proton Mail in India. Karnataka High Court weighs digital privacy against national security concerns.
Bengaluru: On Tuesday, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court heard a crucial appeal filed by Proton Mail, challenging a previous directive by a single-judge bench that asked the Indian government to begin proceedings to block the email service in India.
The case was heard briefly by Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice CM Joshi.
Advocate Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni appeared for Proton Mail and urged the High Court to grant interim relief by restraining the Union government from taking any strict or urgent action against Proton Mail.
He argued that the company had not been properly served notice in the original proceedings before the single judge and that it was not given an opportunity to present its side.
In response, Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) Aravind Kamath represented the Union government and stated that Proton Mail has not yet been blocked in India.
He clarified that the single judge’s order only directed the Centre to initiate proceedings under the Information Technology Act, 2008, particularly Section 69A.
He informed the Court that the actual decision to block the service would be taken by a designated committee and that the process was still ongoing.
The ASG further emphasized that this process is confidential and offered to present the relevant information in a sealed cover for the Court’s perusal.
In the meantime, he opposed any kind of interim stay on the ongoing proceedings, urging the Court to let the lawful process continue.
The Division Bench did not pass any order for an express stay on the IT Act proceedings and instead scheduled the next hearing two days later.
It also issued formal notice to M Moser Design Associates India Pvt Ltd, the company that had originally filed the petition which led to the order against Proton Mail.
M Moser Design Associates had approached the Court after offensive and vulgar emails were allegedly sent from Proton Mail targeting one of its employees. These emails were reportedly sent to other employees and the company’s clients.
The company expressed concern over the high level of user anonymity offered by Proton Mail and argued that it could be misused in dangerous ways. The company urged the Court to either regulate or block the platform in India.
On April 29, the single judge accepted this plea and directed the Indian government to start proceedings under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
The judge justified the direction on the ground that Proton Mail’s anonymous nature had become problematic, reportedly being used to send bomb threats and other abusive communications.
In strong words, the single judge remarked,
“Courts cannot remain mute spectators when faced with such menace which undermines privacy and integrity of women in particular.”
This directive from the single-judge bench is now being contested by Proton Mail before the Division Bench. One of the key issues raised by Proton Mail’s counsel was that the company was not properly served notice of the case.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Orders Ban on Proton Mail in India Over Anonymous Threat Emails
Advocate Kulkarni argued that the notice was only sent by email and registered post, and that it lacked the proper formal procedure required under Indian law.
According to him,
“Proton Mail was sent an email and a registered post. However, the official process of the Court was not used to serve Proton Mail notice,” adding that “Proton Mail ought to have been served a summons that bore the signature of an authorised court official. This was not done.”
He also mentioned that once the issue was brought to the company’s attention through proper legal channels, Proton Mail acted responsibly.
Kulkarni said,
“Proton Mail has cooperated with the police and blocked the sender of offensive emails once the matter was brought to its notice,”
Further, he submitted that the company has always extended support to the Indian authorities when proper procedure was followed through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) route.
He stated,
“Proton Mail has cooperated with the authorities once a proper request was sent through proper channel – the MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) route,”
However, ASG Aravind Kamath contended that the email sent to Proton Mail about the High Court proceedings included a copy of the writ petition and
“had all the trappings of a summons.”
The Division Bench also raised the question of whether Proton Mail was really unaware of the single-judge proceedings, considering that an email had been sent.
ALSO READ: Tihar Jail Denies Christian Michel’s Claim of Sharing Cell with ‘Dangerous’ Inmate
They appeared to question the plausibility of Proton Mail’s claim of ignorance.
In conclusion, the Court adjourned the matter and directed that notices be served to all the respondents in the appeal, including M Moser Design Associates.
Case Title:
PROTON AG V M MOSER DESIGN ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT LTD AND OTHERS Case no.- WA 995/2025
Click Here to Read More Reports on E-mail Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
