Courts cannot remain mute spectators: Karnataka HC in its judgment to ban Proton Mail over cyber abuse case

Karnataka High Court released the judgement earlier this week

In a scathing criticism of online abuse that women face and platforms that shield such perpetrators, the Karnataka High Court has released its detailed judgment directing the government to block access to Proton Mail, the encrypted email service at the centre of a disturbing cyber harassment case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna in his judgment said, "Courts cannot remain mute spectators when faced with such menace which undermines privacy and integrity of women in particular."

"Protecting the society is the joint responsibility of service providers, content providers, law makers. It is the duty of the State to bring such perpetrators of crime to justice, which has become difficult in the case at hand," Nagaprasanna further said.

"Hence, in the light of the egregious facts, prevailing legal framework and owing to the preceding analysis, I deem it appropriate to answer the prayers of the petitioner," he added.

The case arose after explicit and defamatory email was sent targeting a senior female employee of a Bengaluru-based design firm on September 27, 2024. A second email followed days later, with morphed explicit images of her and other employees.

The emails, which included morphed images and sexual content, were traced back to anonymous Proton Mail accounts.

The company lodged formal complaints with Proton Mail’s abuse team and filed reports on the national cybercrime portal.

While Proton Mail initially disabled the sender’s account, it declined to share any user information.

In its communication, the company stated: “Under Swiss law, we can only comply with requests duly instructed by law enforcement. We advise you to contact your local law enforcement authority… We can also preserve data of an account in anticipation of proceedings, but we require to be contacted by law enforcement.”

The Karnataka police eventually registered a case under various provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

However, the investigation stalled. Authorities told the court that they were unable to move forward due to Proton Mail’s lack of cooperation and the absence of its servers in India.

This is reminiscent of the last time that Proton courted controversy after its platform was used to disseminate fake bomb threats to schools in Chennai. The Tamil Nadu police, then, also stalled in their investigation, as Proton refused to share information.

It was then that the TN Police requested the IT ministry to block the platform. However, It took the intervention of Swiss authorities to prevent the blocking of an end-to-end encrypted email platform.

The judgment also noted that MeitY told the court that platforms can be blocked under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. It clarified that such action requires either a formal request from a nodal officer or a direction from a competent court.

Invoking Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, the court held that its order is sufficient for the government to act.

"Therefore, the Union of India/Competent Authority shall now take steps in terms of Section
69A of the Act read with Rule 10 of the Rules to block Proton Mail," the judgement said.