Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a company engaged in architecture and interior design, received abusive and sexually explicit emails from pseudonymous Proton Mail addresses on 27-09-2024. The emails targeted a female senior employee and contained defamatory content and morphed images. The petitioner promptly reported the abuse to Proton Mail's abuse team, which disabled the offending account. However, subsequent similar emails were received from a newly created account. The petitioner filed a cyber crime complaint, leading to registration of Crime No. 876 of 2024 under Sections 66, 66C, and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The investigating police reported inability to take effective steps to identify the accused due to lack of concrete mutual legal assistance arrangements with Switzerland, where Proton Mail is based. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 seeking mandamus to direct the authorities to invoke mutual legal assistance treaties to obtain information about the sender, to issue letters rogatory, to preserve data, and ultimately to ban Proton Mail in India. The petitioner argued that Proton Mail’s encryption and lack of servers in India hinder investigation and threaten national security. The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, contended that a procedure exists under Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, and that any blocking order must follow that procedure. The court heard arguments and reserved orders on 21.03.2025. The final decision is not included in the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether directions under Articles 226 and 227 can be issued to secure information about the sender of offensive emails via Proton Mail under mutual legal assistance treaties and to ban Proton Mail in India.
Law Points
- Information Technology Act
- 2000 - Sections 66
- 66C
- 67
- Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules
- 2009 - Rule 10
- Mutual Legal Assistance between India and Switzerland
- Letters Rogatory
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (04) 23
Writ Petition No. 2358 of 2025 (GM – RES)
Jatin Sehgal and others for petitioner; Shamanth Naik (HCGP for R1, R3, R6); K. Arvind Kamath (ASG for R2, R4, R5)
M. Moser Design Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.
State of Karnataka, Home Department & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought directions to secure information about sender of offensive emails via mutual legal assistance and to ban Proton Mail in India
Filing Reason
Obscene and defamatory emails sent through Proton Mail to the petitioner company, which Proton Mail refused to disclose information on without law enforcement request
Issues
Whether directions should be issued under Articles 226 and 227 to obtain information on the sender of abusive emails using mutual legal assistance treaties with Switzerland.
Whether the use of Proton Mail should be banned in India given its end-to-end encryption and lack of server in India.
Whether the procedure under Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 applies.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Proton Mail was being used for malicious purposes, and the authorities' inability to trace the sender necessitated a ban on the platform.
Petitioner argued that hoax bomb mails also originated from Proton Mail, endangering national security.
Respondents argued that a procedure under Rule 10 of the IT Rules exists for blocking access, and any such order must follow that procedure.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was visited with an electronic mail, that dropped into its mail box with foul language and imagery laced with sexually explicit content and defamatory insinuations.
From: ReemaBhandari-M Moser Associates Sent: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 05:04:11 +0000 To: abuse@protonmail.com Cc: VikramSingh-M Moser Associates Subject: Formal Abuse Complaint and Notice of Legal Action
Proton Legal: 'Under Swiss law, we can only comply with requests duly instructed by law enforcement. We advise you to contact your local law enforcement authority.'
Procedural History
On 27-09-2024, the petitioner received offensive emails from Proton Mail addresses. On 28-09-2024, it filed an abuse complaint with Proton Mail. Proton Mail disabled the first account, but further offensive emails were received from a new account on 01-10-2024. A cyber crime complaint was registered, leading to registration of Crime No. 876 of 2024 under the Information Technology Act. Police investigation reported difficulties in tracing the sender due to lack of cooperation from Proton Mail. The petitioner then filed the writ petition seeking directions. The High Court heard the petition and reserved orders on 21-03-2025, and pronounced on 29-04-2025.
Acts & Sections
- Information Technology Act, 2000: 66, 66C, 67
- Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009: Rule 10
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:
