Block Swiss encrypted email service Proton Mail, Karnataka High Court to Centre
In this case, a Bengaluru firm, M Moser Design Associates, had approached the high court about the alleged targeting of some women employees using the Proton Mail service, wherein emails with obscene content, including AI-generated 'deepfake' images, had been sent. The petition called for agreements between India and Switzerland to obtain information and documents regarding the sender of the offensive emails and to preserve them. It also called for steps to ban the plaKarnatform.
The petitioner's counsel stated that, although the service allowed users to select India as a location, its servers were actually located outside the country. The plea also highlighted previous instances where the platform's blockage was sought on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Police. It also noted that several bomb threats had been sent to schools using the platform.
Issuing an order in favour of the petitioner, the bench stated, 'Mandamus issued to respondents- Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) and Ministry of Communications to initiate proceedings in terms of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000 read with Rule 10 of the IT Procedure and Safeguards of Blocking of Access to Information by Public Access Rules, 2009 to block ProtonMail.' Section 69A of the IT Act gives the government the power to block access to certain information through computer resources.
A detailed order is awaited.
Previously, the Delhi High Court had directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Delhi Police to investigate the use of Proton Mail. As reported by the Indian Express, the Delhi High Court matter dealt with a habeas corpus petition. It sought the production of the petitioner's wife and their two minor children after the woman was found to be corresponding with her father over Proton Mail, which the police claimed is banned in India.
This March, before the Karnataka High Court, MEITY sent a communication stating that ProtonMail was not actually blocked. It stated, 'MEITY can exercise this power (blocking) upon receipt of a request from a Nodal Officer and after examination and recommendation by the Committee…… action can also be taken under section 69A if so ordered by a competent Court. It is submitted that Proton Mail has not been blocked in India under Section 69A of IT Act, 2000 and is operating in India.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Karnataka HC Refuses Pleas Against Mandatory Smart Meters, Cites Judicial Discipline
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday refused to hear two petitions questioning the state's requirement that new electricity consumers have smart prepaid meters installed, stating that a similar issue is pending before a division bench. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who had reserved orders on July 22, made a strong pitch for judicial discipline in his order. Judicial Discipline Cited "Judicial discipline requires hierarchy, and propriety necessitates this Court to display judicial hands-off to the current petitions. Hence the subject petitions are not entertainable," Justice Nagaprasanna said in his observation. He further observed a previous commitment by Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty that the State would not require smart metering of the petitioners' residential premises, as their connections were not new." Court's Earlier Fears About Meter Price The court's denial comes notwithstanding its stern verbal observations during previous hearings on the exorbitant price of these smart meters in Karnataka as against states around it. Justice Nagaprasanna had earlier asked, "All over (other states) it is at Rs 900 for the very same smart meter, and you are charging Rs 8,900. Where will poor people go sir? You have outsourced the things, this is dangerous. You are quenching from all the poor people." In following these issues, the court had passed an interim order instructing the State not to make smart meters compulsory for power supply/electricity connections, especially in violation of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pre-paid Smart Metering) Regulations, 2024. Petitioners Claim Hardship, Challenge Tender Process The petitions were initiated by persons such as Jayalakshmi, who received a notice on April 2, 2025, instructing her to buy a Smart Energy Meter. Senior Counsel Lakshmy Iyengar, for one of the petitioners, contended that the mandate will ultimately drive all consumers to move to smart meters. The tender process and the "extreme hardships" caused to consumers by paying a very high price for meters in Karnataka were specifically challenged by the petitioners, drawing a contrast with the about Rs 900 charged in other states. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, who appeared on behalf of the State, had earlier explained to the court that smart meters were meant to be installed only in new house connections and not for existing consumers. ALSO READ: 'BrahMos Hai Humare Paas': Owaisi Slams Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif's Water Threat | VIDEO
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court issues notices on ‘blocking' of Sakshi TV channel
Justice P.S. Narasimha of the Supreme Court ordered that notices be issued to the State of Andhra Pradesh and 11 other respondents, including the A.P. State FiberNet Ltd. (APSFL), in a writ petition filed by Indira Television Limited (Sakshi TV) wholetime Director B. Ramana Reddy against the alleged disconnection of the channel by the APSFL and nearly all the major Multi System Operators (MSOs) across the State due to the threats allegedly given by the State and its officials. Mr. Ramana Reddy stated in the petition that the APSFL had disconnected the channel from its distribution platform after the 2024 general elections allegedly without any notice or explanation, and it was quickly followed by similar disconnections by the MSOs. Resultantly, the channel was effectively 'blacked out' across the State. The petitioner's counsel, Mahfooz A. Nazki, prayed for a declaration that the actions of the respondents, including the disconnection of the channel and the coercive measures taken against the MSOs, were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court was also urged to direct the respondents to forthwith restore the transmission of the channel to the status as it existed on June 3, 2024, and to refrain from taking any coercive, indirect, or extra-legal measures that interfered with the transmission / distribution of the channel. The matter was posted for further hearing after three weeks.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Life without parole: The state of Delhi-NCR strays?
The Supreme Court, while passing its absurd order on the capture and permanent relocation of stray dogs in the National Capital Region to shelters, asked the public not to show any sentiments. As human beings, we ought to have compassion and humanity and a lack of it typically leads to in the next few months, if the screams and cries of dogs and puppies haunt you, remember – you'd be doing the right thing by staying silent and simply watching them being taken away to be crammed into tiny spaces where they will meet their eventual, brutal deaths. To show up as a model citizen, you could probably openly celebrate the redressal of the stray dog menace because clearly, it's the sole problem plaguing Delhi and its adjoining areas right now – not pollution, lack of women's safety, appalling drainage systems or filth on the judgments that fail to consider practicality are now a reality in India. Dogs, who have lived with human beings for centuries, are facing unprecedented hate simply for their existence. 'We are not doing this for us; it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved,' Justice JB Pardiwala said at Monday's to the directive, the civic authorities in Delhi-NCR are now looking at an enormous task, which is honestly, mission impossible. Delhi has no dedicated dog shelters, and only 20 sterilisation centres with an overall capacity to house 2,500 dogs at a time. To reduce the number of stray dog population, 4.5 lakh sterilisations need to be done yearly, meaning 70 per cent of the canines. However, the existing capacity only allows for sterilisation of 1.25 lakh the process to be completed within eight weeks can be described as baffling at best and delusional at stunning order takes away years of work by authorities, animal rescuers and activists who ensured strays were immunised and sterilised. Shelters should be reserved for ill, old, and aggressive dogs who need to be handled by trained Banerjee, co-founder of the Noida-based Earthlings Trust shelter, elaborated on the matter. 'Dogs in shelters need to be kept as per their temperament. Keeping all of them together, especially after forcibly removing them from their familiar environments where they were born or lived for several years, will trigger fights and the dogs will eventually kill each other,' she told no matter how trained the employees are, dealing with traumatised animals isn't an easy task. For the unversed, dogs too feel fear, anxiety, happiness and grief. By pushing these 'trained employees' to care for canines in such conditions, are we really ending dog bites or deaths due to it?'Hypothetically, even if the authorities manage to find space and build enough shelters to house all the dogs, aren't the people employed to feed the canines in danger? They need to enter the enclosures of the dogs to feed them,' Banerjee rightly pointed are not permanent solutions to curbing the stray population, because there can never be adequate space to house all the dogs in Delhi-NCR. And so, even if all dogs are removed and put in far-off shelters, those from other states will quickly fill up the streets, usually unsterilised, unvaccinated and unfamiliar with the surroundings – increasing territorial fights and food disputes. Wouldn't that pose a graver threat to people? In the shelters, meanwhile, vaccinated dogs will encounter the unvaccinated ones, leading to a breakout of diseases and putting caregivers in a vulnerable situation.A more rational idea would have been to encourage adoptions and educate the public on stray dogs through awareness programmes to reduce incidents of human-animal Monday's hearing in the Supreme Court, there was mention of The Netherlands, which in 2023 became the first country to be free of stray dogs. The three key elements of the Dutch model included – the CNVR programme (Collect, Neuter, Vaccinate, and Return), levying high taxes on those who buy dogs from breeders and pet stores thereby promoting adoption, and an animal police force to act against abuse and help in the Dutch model, in India too, we have ABC rules which were framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The ABC Rules, 2023, supersede those of 2001, which were found not to be effective in quelling the population of stray dogs. Three major steps of the rules include sterilisation, vaccination against rabies, and release to their original location. Under the rules, permanent relocation of dogs is unlawful. The Supreme Court, bizarrely, called the rule 'absurd' and asked authorities to 'forget' about it for now. Judges asking governments to breach rules must be a rarity. The bench also tossed concerns about disrupting the natural ecosystem into the highlighted that with all stray dogs being removed from Delhi-NCR, a vacuum will be created, meaning an infestation of rodents and monkeys will mount, which is even harder to control.'Steet dogs hunt rodents. Fear of the canines keeps monkeys at bay. With them gone, the city streets will be filled with monkeys, which are even harder to catch. Also, in these shelters that they plan to build, even if they are in the border areas, there will be territorial bickering not only among dogs but also among other animals,' she said, stressing that rabies can spread from any animal and not just said that, the fact that bite cases are being reported daily cannot be discarded -- after a major dip seen during the pandemic, dog bite cases have risen to 37 lakh in 2024. It also cannot be dismissed that some strays get triggered without any provocation, instilling perennial fear among people. And being chased by a pack of dogs leading to accidents is bound to evoke I was in school, I was chased by a pack of seven dogs and tripped on the street while returning home from tuition. For more than a month, I would walk down the street with an unimaginable fear of being mauled to death. However, having had pet dogs while growing up, it was easier for me to fight that fear and move is, however, not easy for everyone, especially those suffering from cynophobia. And this is where authorities need to implement control and responsible care and rehabilitation of matter where you stand on the dog feeders vs residents debate, the fact remains that feeding dogs near housing societies – knowingly or unknowingly – triggers territorial behaviour. The dogs tend to become aggressive regarding their territory and attack if they feel threatened. Designated feeding spots, away from residential areas, would eliminate territorial fights and keep the canines calmer, allowing people to move around without awareness and responsible welfare and rehabilitation drives along with effective implementation of the ABC rules would have been the correct path to curb the stray population. Instead, the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to ground reality and basically gave a go-ahead to a relocation process that will end up inflicting cruelty on the question of why the stray dog population has only increased despite decades of ABC rules in place is the need of the hour. But the Supreme Court failed to do so.(Sharangee Dutta is the Chief Sub Editor at India Today Digital. She loves covering human interest stories, watching thriller movies, and cooking elaborate meals when there's time. She is a big fan of tennis and all things 90s)- Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court#Delhi
