The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Union government to block Proton Mail a secure, Swiss-based email provider—citing its failure to assist Indian law enforcement in identifying anonymous users accused of online sexual harassment.
The case originated from a petition filed by M Moser Design Associates, a Bengaluru-based firm, which alleged that anonymous Proton Mail users sent vulgar and abusive emails targeting a senior female executive. Despite multiple complaints, Proton Mail refused to cooperate beyond its existing privacy protocols, citing Swiss law and the need for formal international law enforcement requests. The High Court, citing “menace” and the undermining of women’s privacy, concluded that the platform’s refusal amounted to a serious violation of Indian legal expectations.
The Legal Battle: Courts, Cyber Abuse, and Encryption
The High Court’s 29-page judgment, made public on May 29, 2025, underscored that Indian courts cannot act as “mute spectators” in the face of platforms that provide cover to online harassers. Justice Krishna S. Dixit, in a strongly worded opinion, noted that Proton’s actions “strike at the heart of digital accountability” and embolden abuse.
Despite taking down the initial account following a complaint from the victim’s employer, Proton did not assist in tracing the identity of the perpetrators when similar emails were sent shortly after. The police, though “earnest in endeavour,” were unable to proceed further due to encryption and lack of cooperation.
The court directed the Union government to invoke Section 69A of the Information Technology Act along with Rule 10 of the 2009 Blocking Rules, and to immediately block the URLs in question while larger proceedings to block the entire service are undertaken.
ALSO READ: FCRF Launches Campus Ambassador Program to Empower India’s Next-Gen Cyber Defenders
Swiss Response and Jurisdictional Stalemate
Proton Mail, owned by Geneva-based Proton AG, was not represented during the legal proceedings. However, a spokesperson previously stated that the company only responds to formal requests routed through Swiss law enforcement, in accordance with their domestic laws on privacy and neutrality. The Swiss authorities had reportedly reached out to the Indian government after a similar attempt to block Proton Mail by Tamil Nadu police last year.
Yet, a miscommunication emerged. When the Karnataka High Court’s judgment was released, Proton updated its blog claiming that Swiss officials were actively engaging with India—a statement later walked back by Proton’s legal head, Marc Løebekken, who clarified that the update referred to last year’s outreach.
Indian officials, meanwhile, argued that Proton’s lack of a local server and its refusal to assist investigations effectively place it outside the reach of Indian law, creating a dangerous precedent where platforms can be used for abuse without consequence.
Encryption vs. Accountability: A Global Dilemma
The ruling reignites the global debate between privacy and accountability. On one hand, Proton Mail is lauded globally for its strong encryption and resistance to surveillance, making it a critical tool for journalists, activists, and whistleblowers. On the other, Indian authorities argue that absolute privacy should not come at the cost of justice—particularly in crimes against women.
K. Arvind Kamath, Additional Solicitor General representing the Union Government, did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction to block Proton but emphasized the need for adherence to bilateral protocols. The judgment acknowledged this, but reiterated that international friction could not override the need to safeguard victims.
The case has wider implications for the future of global digital platforms operating in India. Legal experts caution that more such confrontations are likely, especially as India tightens control over cyberspace under its data protection and digital security policies.