Karnataka High Court hears Proton Mail’s appeal against its India ban. Court allows selective blocking of emails, says full ban awaits govt decision.
Bengaluru: Today, on July 3, the Karnataka High Court Division Bench heared an appeal filed by Swiss-based email provider Proton Mail (Proton AG) against a single judge’s previous order that had directed a ban on its services in India.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aravind Kamath, representing the Union Government, informed the Court that a legal process under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act is already in progress to determine whether Proton Mail’s services should be blocked in India.
He stated,
“Proton Mail has submitted its response, and a decision is likely within eight weeks.”
The ASG also added that
“two offending URLs have already been blocked.”
Advocate Jatin Sehgal, who represents Moser Design — the original petitioner whose plea led to the single judge’s order banning Proton Mail — submitted before the Court that investigating Proton Mail is difficult because the company has “no servers in India.”
Karnataka High Court Hears Proton Mail Ban Appeal: Privacy Vs National Security Battle Unfolds
He argued that due to this,
“the IT Act doesn’t strictly apply to the service.”
Moser Design also raised concerns regarding misuse of the platform, alleging that
“Proton shouldn’t operate in India as its servers are abroad allegedly in Russia and inaccessible to Indian authorities.”
He further claimed it has been used for
“misuse, incl. bomb threats.”
Proton Mail, through its counsel Advocate Manu Kulkarni, countered that the location of servers is irrelevant in determining whether the service can operate in India.
He told the Court,
“Server location is irrelevant; we have a right to judicial remedy despite pending Sec 69A IT Act proceedings.”
He also pointed out that the show cause notice under Section 69A mentions only the case before the single judge and doesn’t refer to any other reason to block Proton.
Kulkarni submitted,
“The Section 69A IT Act show cause notice refers only to the proceedings before the single judge and cites no other cause of action.”
During the hearing, the Division Bench asked,
“How much time will it take to conclude the proceedings, about 8 weeks? So until then, Proton won’t be blocked entirely, just specific URLs?”
The Court clarified that a complete ban on Proton Mail services is not being enforced at the moment and only specific URLs are being blocked.
At this stage, the Court also noted that Advocate Jatin Sehgal does not currently have an active role in the ongoing matter. However, Sehgal informed the Court,
“I’m still receiving emails from the same portal, so the issue hasn’t stopped for me.”
The Court responded,
“Oh, you’re still receiving emails? Alright if that’s the case, you can share the URLs with Proton, and they’ll block them immediately.”
When Sehgal again raised concerns regarding Proton Mail’s servers being outside India, the Court replied,
“That’s a matter for the government to consider they’ll have to look into the larger issue. For now, the concern is that emails are still coming in. If you receive them, inform Proton, and they’ll take action to block them.”
The Bench also directed that the responsibility lies on the petitioner to inform Proton about such emails.
It said,
“Wherever the offending emails or URLs are coming from, those links need to be provided.”
Advocate Kulkarni then clarified,
“I clarified that the email IDs need to be shared. In fact, two such email IDs were already blocked back in December, and that was noted in the earlier order.”
The Court then issued an interim direction stating that Advocate Sehgal, on behalf of Moser Design, must report any future offending emails or URLs to Proton Mail, who must then block them immediately.
It reiterated that
“if the email is coming from a domain outside Proton, they won’t have control over it. But if it’s from a Proton domain, then they definitely do regardless of whether the servers are in India or not. It’s their responsibility.”
The Court also acknowledged that Proton is actively addressing the issue and clarified that the Section 69A proceedings are primarily a matter between Proton and the Union Government. It observed that Sehgal may not be directly involved in those proceedings at this time.
Nevertheless, Sehgal argued that
“while Proton has agreed to share information with the Swiss government, they are not doing the same with Indian authorities.” The Court responded sharply, “The Government of India is free to block Proton’s services entirely how does that concern you?”
Sehgal then added a serious allegation, stating,
“My client’s pornographic video is being circulated via Proton Mail.”
The Court again assured him that his concerns will be addressed through cooperation, stating,
“Proton will block any offending URLs once notified.”
Sehgal mentioned that a police complaint regarding this issue had already been filed.
To this, the Court replied,
“He may assist the government in the Section 69A proceedings if required, but for now, he should inform Proton of any such emails so they can be blocked.”
While dictating the interim order, the Division Bench noted that the central government’s Section 69A IT Act proceedings against Proton Mail are ongoing and are expected to be completed in about eight weeks.
It also acknowledged the statement made by Advocate Sehgal that Moser Design continues to receive offending emails through Proton Mail.
Accordingly, the Court directed that
“whenever Respondent 1 receives offending emails via Proton Mail, they must report it to Proton, including the sender’s email ID.” In response, “Proton is ordered to block those email IDs immediately.”
This direction will remain in force until the next hearing.
Background of the Case
On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court Division Bench heard an appeal filed by Swiss-based encrypted email provider Proton Mail against a single judge’s order directing the Indian government to begin proceedings to block its services under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
The case arose after M Moser Design Associates, a Bengaluru-based company, alleged that its employee was targeted with vulgar and offensive emails sent via Proton Mail. These emails were also allegedly circulated to other employees and clients, causing reputational harm and distress.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Orders Ban on Proton Mail in India Over Anonymous Threat Emails
Moser Design argued that Proton Mail’s high level of user anonymity makes it difficult to trace offenders and poses a threat to safety, citing instances of bomb threats and abusive communications.
On April 29, a single judge accepted the company’s plea, stating that
“Courts cannot remain mute spectators when faced with such menace which undermines privacy and integrity of women in particular,”
and directed the Centre to initiate blocking proceedings under Section 69A.
Challenging this, Advocate Manu Kulkarni, appearing for Proton Mail, submitted that the company was not properly served a court notice. He argued that only an email and a registered post were sent, without the formal court-authorised summons.
He said,
“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,” and added that “Proton Mail ought to have been served a summons that bore the signature of an authorised court official. This was not done.”
Kulkarni further submitted that Proton Mail acted responsibly once informed properly, saying,
“Proton Mail has cooperated with the police and blocked the sender of offensive emails once the matter was brought to its notice,” and has also “cooperated with the authorities once a proper request was sent through proper channel – the MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) route.”
ASG Aravind Kamath, for the Union Government, argued that the email communication to Proton Mail included the writ petition and “had all the trappings of a summons.”
He clarified that Proton Mail has not been blocked yet, and that the single judge’s order merely initiated proceedings, which are confidential and under review by a designated committee.
Case Title:
Proton AG v. M Moser Design Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, WA 995/2025.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports on E-mail Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
