Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court, in Proton AG v. M. Moser Design Associates (W.A. No. 995 of 2025), is examining an important issue concerning cross-border criminal investigations, digital privacy, and the obligations of foreign technology companies operating in India. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, while hearing an appeal filed by Proton AG, directed the Union of India to file an affidavit clarifying whether foreign entities can lawfully refuse to cooperate with Indian investigating agencies by insisting that all requests must be routed only through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) mechanism.
The appeal challenges an earlier order passed by a Single Judge directing the Central Government to initiate proceedings under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, for blocking Proton Mail in India. The controversy arose after M. Moser Design Associates complained that several of its senior female employees had received anonymous emails through Proton Mail containing obscene, abusive, sexually explicit and AI-generated deepfake content. According to the company, these emails caused serious reputational harm and mental trauma to the victims while also affecting its business relationships.
The company had earlier approached the police, but alleged that despite registration of an FIR, the investigation made little progress because the identity of the sender could not be traced. It was contended that the investigating agency failed to promptly invoke the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process between India and Switzerland to obtain information from the service provider. Dissatisfied with the pace of investigation, the company approached the High Court seeking directions for an effective investigation and for obtaining the required information through international legal assistance. While dealing with the matter, the Single Judge observed that misuse of encrypted email services could pose serious risks and directed the Union Government to initiate blocking proceedings. That direction has been challenged before the Division Bench.
Arguments of the Parties:
Proton AG, the appellant, submitted that it has never disputed its obligation to comply with lawful directions issued by competent courts or authorities. However, it argued that such directions must be communicated in accordance with the applicable legal procedure governing cross-border requests. According to Proton, since it is a Swiss entity, valid legal requests seeking disclosure of information must be transmitted through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty mechanism rather than through private advocates or registered post.
The appellant submitted that it did not receive any valid legal notice from the Indian court. It explained that the notices allegedly sent through private counsel or by registered post did not constitute lawful service under the applicable legal framework. Proton further stated that immediately after receiving the relevant order through the Swiss authorities under the prescribed MLAT procedure, it complied with the request. Therefore, according to the appellant, there was no deliberate refusal to cooperate with Indian authorities.
The Union of India, during the hearing before the Division Bench, substantially supported the position regarding the mode of service. The Central Government submitted that where a foreign entity such as Proton AG is involved, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty is the appropriate legal mechanism for communicating judicial orders and investigative requests. It maintained that service through private advocates or ordinary postal methods cannot substitute the treaty-based procedure contemplated under international cooperation arrangements.
On the other hand, the original writ petitioner, M. Moser Design Associates, had consistently maintained that the repeated circulation of abusive and sexually explicit emails had caused immense hardship to its employees and had seriously affected their dignity and reputation. It argued that the inability of investigating agencies to promptly secure information from the foreign service provider significantly delayed the criminal investigation. The company emphasized that effective cooperation from digital intermediaries is essential in addressing cybercrimes involving anonymous communications and urged the authorities to take appropriate legal measures, including blocking access to platforms that fail to facilitate lawful investigations.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench did not decide the merits of the dispute but identified the central legal issue requiring determination. The Court observed that the controversy extends beyond the facts of the present case and raises an important question concerning international legal cooperation in criminal investigations. The principal issue, according to the Bench, is whether a foreign digital platform can legally refuse to cooperate with Indian investigating authorities by insisting that requests must invariably be routed only through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process.
In view of the significance of this question, the Court directed the Union of India to place its stand on record by filing an affidavit specifically clarifying whether foreign entities are legally entitled to insist upon MLAT as the exclusive mode of communication for investigation requests. The Court considered such clarification necessary because the answer would have broader implications for cross-border criminal investigations involving international technology companies providing digital services to Indian users.
The Bench also took note of the submissions made by Proton AG that it had complied with the judicial order immediately after receiving it through the Swiss authorities. This assertion, according to the appellant, demonstrated that the dispute was not about refusal to obey lawful orders but only about the legality of the mode through which such orders were communicated.
The proceedings also arise against the backdrop of the earlier order passed by the Single Judge directing initiation of proceedings under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act for blocking Proton Mail in India. The Single Judge had expressed concern that anonymous encrypted email services, if misused, could facilitate serious offences, including circulation of defamatory, obscene or threatening material and communications affecting public order or national security. Observing that such misuse could have serious consequences, the Single Judge had directed the Central Government to take steps under the statutory blocking mechanism.
However, while entertaining the appeal, the Division Bench had earlier stayed the operation of the blocking directions, thereby allowing Proton Mail to continue functioning in India until the legal issues are finally decided. The interim protection remains in force during the pendency of the appeal.
The present proceedings therefore involve balancing two significant legal considerations. On one hand is the need to ensure prompt and effective investigation of cyber offences affecting victims within India. On the other is the requirement that international cooperation with foreign entities must conform to established legal procedures, including treaty obligations where applicable.
By directing the Union Government to clarify its position on the scope and applicability of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty framework, the Karnataka High Court has signalled that the dispute is likely to shape the legal principles governing cooperation between Indian investigating agencies and foreign digital service providers. The Court has not expressed any final opinion regarding the liability of Proton AG or the legality of the proposed blocking action. Instead, it has chosen to first obtain the Government’s authoritative stand on the legal framework governing international requests before proceeding further.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 8, when the Union of India’s affidavit is expected to assist the Court in determining whether foreign service providers may insist upon MLAT as the exclusive mechanism for responding to requests from Indian authorities and whether such insistence can justify non-compliance with requests communicated through other modes.