The Karnataka High Court has directed M Moser Design Associates (India) Pvt Ltd to provide Proton Mail with the email IDs from which its female employees continue to receive offensive messages, so that Proton can block them swiftly. The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice CM Joshi clarified that Proton must block such email addresses as soon as possible, given that proceedings under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and Rule 10 of the IT Rules, 2009 are ongoing against Proton.
The court stated that this arrangement would remain in force until the next hearing scheduled on August 28. It further noted that if any new offensive emails are received in the meantime, Moser should forward the details to Proton's designated email address (abuse@proton.me). On receiving such information, Proton shall block the source.
Read Also:-Why did Karnataka High Court Issue Notice on Proton Mail’s Appeal Against Blocking Order?
If the emails are coming to your client (Moser) from a domain which is outside Proton, they won’t have control over it. But if it is emanating from the same domain of Proton, definitely they have control over it, whether they are in India or outside, it is their headache, they have to block it. Please inform Proton about the domain from which you are receiving the mail; they will block it, the bench orally remarked.
The direction came during the post-lunch hearing after Moser’s counsel, Advocate Jatin Sehgal, told the court that their employees were still receiving abusive emails, despite having already filed a police complaint. Sehgal also pointed out that Proton shares data with the Swiss Government but not with Indian authorities.
“The Government of India is at liberty to block their entry in the country itself, they have that mechanism with them… you just inform them (Proton) about the offending material and they will block it,” the court stated while addressing Moser's counsel.
Importantly, Proton had sought a window of 36 hours to act upon each complaint. However, the bench directed that “offending mails shall be blocked as expeditiously as possible”.
Earlier in the day, Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath informed the court that a wider scrutiny of Proton’s functioning had revealed further instances of non-compliance apart from the two URLs earlier flagged by a single-judge bench. Consequently, the Centre had issued notices to Proton AG, which submitted its replies. A final decision is expected within eight weeks.
For background, the case arose from Moser’s plea alleging that its female employees were being repeatedly targeted through emails containing vulgar, obscene, and sexually colored remarks allegedly sent through Proton Mail.
On July 1, the High Court had issued notice on Proton AG’s appeal challenging a single-judge order that directed the Union Government to initiate proceedings under Section 69A of the IT Act, read with Rule 10 of the IT Blocking Rules, 2009. The single-judge had also ordered blocking of the offending URLs until the Centre concluded its proceedings.
During the hearings, Advocate Jatin Sehgal, appearing for Moser, argued that once an intermediary moves its servers outside India and refuses access to Indian authorities, it cannot be allowed to operate under the IT Act framework. Sehgal pointed out that Proton had shifted its servers to Russia after the 2022 IT Rules came into effect and argued that it had failed to cooperate with Indian authorities.
“Multiple countries have banned them as they don’t provide access. All illegal activities are happening,” Sehgal argued before the court.
In reply, the Acting Chief Justice asked Proton’s counsel whether the company, having shifted its servers abroad, was beyond Indian jurisdiction.
Moser’s counsel responded in the negative, contending that Proton was in breach of the Indian IT framework by refusing server access.
In response, Proton’s counsel, Advocate Manu Kulkarni, submitted that Proton was fully participating in the ongoing Section 69A proceedings before the Centre and had filed its responses. He argued that there was no legal requirement that a server must be located in India for the company to operate in the country and that the location of the server had no bearing on the maintainability of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
