Notes

The Karnataka High Court in April gave its judgment in M. MOSER DESIGN ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v KARNATAKA & ORS. [W.P. 2358 of 2025]

Read the Judgment here – https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-05-29/d9fid5r9/Moser_Design_Associates_v__State_of_Karnataka__1_.pdf

Read more: Blocking Proton Mail – Comment on Moser Design Associates

Facts

The Petitioner is a company registered in Bangalore. It has received on 2 occasions emails containing offensive, abusive, vulgar, obscene content, along with morphed images of a female employee working at the Petitioner’s company. The emails were from a Proton email ID. On the first occasion, the Company mailed the Proton Mail team about the event. On the second occasion, the Company lodged a formal complaint with the Proton Mail team. To this the Proton Mail team responded by disabling the account from which the emails were sent. Subsequently the Petitioner also filed a complaint with the Cyber Crime Branch.

Proton Mail

Proton Mail is a email software, registered in Switzerland. The Court has issued directions to the Union Government to block access to Proton Mail in India.

What is Wrong?

There are at least four points that the Court has not considered while giving its judgment

Requirements u/s 69A of IT Act are Not Fulfilled

To block access to any information it is required to be within the category of sec. 69A.

Section 69A reproduced for ease –

Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.

Clearly, offensive, abusive, obscene, vulgar content, and even morphed images do not fulfill the requirement under section 69A. Rule 10 of the IT Blocking Rules provides for the relevant authorities to block access following the order of a Court. In the present case, the Court has sought to apply its powers under Rule 10 to direct the Union Government to block Proton Mail. However, the order is bereft of merit since it does not comply with section 69A itself.

“Block Proton Mail”?

The order of the court issues mandamus on the Union Government to block Proton Mail. This order needs more analysis. What does this mean?

Does it mean that Proton Mail will no longer be able to be accessed within India? Something similar to – TikTok, PUBG etc., the many apps that were banned in 2020?

This is the only logical interpretation that I can make of the order. it cannot mean anything else. Which is where the order seems flawed once again. How do you possibly block access to a mail service? While blocking orders are issued routinely, they relate to content that has been uploaded to platforms open to public use, different types of social media, blogs, streaming websites, other websites modeled on photo/video content consumption. Websites like these are incomparable to mailing apps. Taking down of a post cannot be equated to blocking access to a mailing app.

Consequences, of such a blocking would be severe and far reaching. I am a user of Proton Mail. I have registered to use many software services using my Proton Mail ID. Blocking access to Proton Mail itself would also hamper with my ability to engage with all services linked with the email ID. Consider a person with a bank account linked to proton mail ID, OR a person engaged in litigation and receiving correspondence on his Proton Mail ID, how would such persons be protected from imminent consequences of blocking email ID? Further, why must an innocent user of the same be penalized?

Diversion from matter at Hand

The Court has also, in its judgment diverted from the issue at hand to a number of other alleged misuses of Proton Mail email IDs.

¶ 13 of the Judgment discuss the menace that Proton Mail has caused in India. Specifically the court quotes emails that were sent by Proton email ID. These include (i) Bomb Threats to CM of Karnataka, and (ii) Fraud Travel ticket to UAE.

Simply put – Without engaging with the merit in these claims, these are matters beyond the issues before the court.

There is Compliance by Proton Mail

The Indian IT Act functions on the “whack-a-mole” manner. A blocking order is not, and cannot be preemptively issued towards a content, or a platform. Consider a social media platform, where a content uploaded, and against the content a blocking order is issued by the government. The content is thus taken down pursuant to the take down order.

In the present case Proton Mail has disabled the email ID from which the offensive emails were received. In my opinion that is the only action that could have been taken by Proton Mail.

Ancillary Concerns

There are other concerns in the judgment –

In ¶ 16 – The HC refers to the Government Order from 2020 blocking 59 apps. This the court does in order to establish that “It is not that Government of India has not banned any app or any mail.”

The fact is NO MAIL has been blocked by the Government through the order. Mail Master which is entry 29 in the list of the said Order is an app that facilitates in drafting of email bodies.

The judgments that the court relies on in its judgment are judgments of blocking of content, none of them being on email apps.

1. X v. Union of India [2021 SCC OnLine DEL 1788] – Petitioner’s images were uploaded on pornographic websites. Search engine was ordered to “deindex” and “dereference” the search results that pertained to the Petitioners images.
2. X v. Union of India [2023 SCC Online 2361] – Petitioner’s explicit images had been pornographic websites; Court ordered the search engines to remove the search results linking to the explicit images.

This judgment could have been better. I am unsure if an appeal has been filed yet. It seems very unlikely. Proton Mail was unrepresented in this case. [¶ 8] Further, Proton Mail moved its servers out of India in 2020. [¶ 12]