Proton Mail challenges Karnataka High Court single-judge order to block its services in India

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued notice on an appeal filed by Proton Mail against a single-judge's recent directive to block the email service in India [Proton AG v. M Moser Design Associations (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ors]..The matter was briefly heard by a Bench of Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice CM Joshi..Representing Proton Mail, advocate Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni also urged the Court to grant interim relief by directing the Indian government not to take any precipitative action against the email service for now. Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) Aravind Kamath appeared for the Union government and countered that Proton Mail has not yet been blocked in India. He recounted that the single-judge had only directed the government to initiate proceedings under the Information Technology Act (IT Act), and that the final decision on whether Proton Mail would be blocked will be taken by a committee. This process under Section 69A of the IT Act is ongoing, ASG Kamath added. He opposed any stay on the same..The Court, meanwhile, asked how far these proceedings have progressed. ASG Kamath replied that the process is confidential, adding that he could produce details for the Court to peruse in a sealed cover. The Court eventually did not order any express stay on the IT Act proceedings, adding that it would hear the matter the day after tomorrow. The Court has also ordered the service of notice to M Moser Design Associates India Private Ltd, whose petition had led to the single-judge order to block Proton Mail. .M Moser Design Associates moved the Court after vulgar emails about its employee were sent using Proton Mail to other employees and the company's clients.The company flagged risks posed by the continued operation of Proton Mail in India, given the high degree of anonymity it offers to its users. Therefore, it called for appropriate directions to either regulate Proton Mail's operations in India or block it.A single-judge of the High Court allowed the plea on April 29 and directed the Indian government to initiate proceedings under Section 69A of the IT Act 2008 to block Proton Mail in India. .The single-judge reasoned that the anonymous nature of Proton Mail has eventually led it to become a menace, as it is even being used to send bomb threats. "Courts cannot remain mute spectators when faced with such menace which undermines privacy and integrity of women in particular," the single judge held for issuing directions to initiate IT Act proceedings against Proton Mail so that its services are blocked. .This ruling has now been challenged by Proton Mail before the High Court's Division Bench. Notably, the single-judge ruling was passed without hearing Proton Mail, with the single judge noting that the Switzerland-based company had failed to appear in Court despite service of notice. Proton Mail's counsel, advocate Kulkarni, however, argued today that the company was not properly served notice of the High Court case. He told the Division Bench that Proton Mail was sent an email and a registered post. However, the official process of the Court was not used to serve Proton Mail notice, he said. Kulkarni added that Proton Mail ought to have been served a summons that bore the signature of an authorised court official. This was not done, he said. He added that Proton Mail has cooperated with the police and blocked the sender of offensive emails once the matter was brought to its notice. He maintained that Proton Mail has cooperated with the authorities once a proper request was sent through proper channel - the MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) route. .The ASG pointed out that the email sent to Proton Mail about the High Court case, which included a copy of the writ petition, had all the trappings of a summons. The Division Bench also briefly questioned whether Proton Mail was oblivious to the case before the single-judge, when it had been served with intimation of the same by email. The hearing was eventually adjourned after the Court ordered the service of notice to all respondents to the appeal, including M Moser Design Associates..[Read Live Coverage]