Latest news with #InformationTechnology(ProcedureandSafeguardsforBlockingofAccessofInformationbyPublic
The Hindu
29-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Courts cannot remain mute spectators, Karnataka HC says in order to ban Proton Mail over digital sexual abuse
The Karnataka High Court, which ordered the Union government to block Proton Mail in India last month, released the full written version of its judgement on Thursday (May 29, 2025), in which it observed that courts could not remain 'mute spectators' when such a platform became a 'menace'. Its order was in response to a complaint that Proton had refused to help identify users sexually harassing a woman via the Swiss end-to-end encrypted email platform. Despite the April 29 order, Proton Mail is still easily accessible in most of India. Karan Saini, a security researcher who has developed a tool to detect website blocking by various internet service providers, told The Hindu that as of Thursday (May 29, 2025), most ISPs did not seem to be blocking Proton Mail. The text of the full judgement shows that K. Arvind Kamath, the Additional Solicitor General of India who represented the Union government in the case, did not push back on the court's right to block Proton Mail. However, he said that such orders 'require procedure to be followed and the balance of bilateral relations between the two countries.' Swiss authorities had reportedly engaged with the Union government on Proton's behalf after a complaint last year. The High Court's order directed the Union government to 'initiate proceedings in terms of Section 69A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 r/w Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 to block Proton Mail... Till such proceedings are taken up by the Government of India, the offending Uniform Resource Locator - URLs that are indicated in the petition shall be blocked forthwith.' 'Undermines women's privacy, integrity' The order came in response to a petition filed by M Moser Design Associates, a Bengaluru-based firm which said that it had received multiple emails from an anonymous Proton Mail account targeting a senior executive at the firm. The judgement described the first email from the anonymous account as containing 'obscene, abusive, vulgar, sexually coloured, derogatory and defamatory remarks in respect of one of the female senior personnel' of the company. While the email ID was taken down after M Moser Design complained to Proton, another account sent a similarly obscene email within the same week. Even following formal complaints to the police, Proton Mail did not provide any details that could lead to the identification of the individual or individuals behind the account. An email by the platform reproduced in the order said that Proton would only be able to act on a formal law enforcement request from India. 'Courts cannot remain mute spectators when faced with such menace which undermines privacy and integrity of women in particular,' the order said. Swiss intervention Proton AG, which runs the email platform, said in a post last year that Swiss authorities had interceded on its behalf after a formal recommendation by Tamil Nadu police to block Proton Mail in India. This year too, Proton Mail updated that blog post after the High Court pronounced its judgement, saying that Swiss authorities were engaging the Indian government in the matter. However, Marc Løebekken, Head of Legal at Proton, told The Hindu that this was an erroneous statement, as the update was referring to discussions Swiss representatives had with India last year. The blog was eventually amended. Mr. Løebekken told The Hindu on May 10 that the company was awaiting the publication of the court order in full. A Proton spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment after the court order was released. The company was not represented in the Karnataka High Court. Jurisdiction hurdles 'The investigation, though earnest, in endeavour, faltered against the bulwark of international jurisdiction, and encryption,' the court said. 'The State machinery hamstrung, by the absence of enforceable cooperation from Proton AG and the lack of a server within its jurisdiction, submitted its helplessness, in the form of a report.' Ordering the blocking, the court said that Proton 'undoubtedly falls short of the duties prescribed under Indian Law,' adding that the firm's 'inaction and opacity strike at the heart of digital accountability and embolden the malicious.'
Business Upturn
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Upturn
Journalist moves Supreme Court against YouTube channel ban over ‘national security'
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on May 2, 2025, 11:22 IST Senior journalist and Editor-in-Chief of YouTube news platform 4PM, Sanjay Sharma, has approached the Supreme Court seeking relief against the blocking of his channel by YouTube on the alleged grounds of national security and public order, citing a violation of fundamental rights and a lack of due process. In his petition, Sharma called the blocking action 'arbitrary and unconstitutional,' pointing out that no prior notice or hearing was provided before YouTube acted on an undisclosed government order under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. He argued that this violated his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Key Reliefs Sought: Disclosure and quashing of the undisclosed blocking order. Reading down or striking down Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the IT Blocking Rules, 2009 to ensure transparency and safeguard fundamental rights. Mandatory issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing to the content originator, not just the intermediary. A re-examination of Rule 16's confidentiality clause, which prevents disclosure of reasons behind a blocking order. Grounds Raised: The petition argues that the current blocking framework: Infringes Article 14, 19(1)(a), and 21, violating equality, speech, and personal liberty. Is ultra vires the parent IT Act, especially Section 69A, which mandates written, reasoned orders. Permits indefinite blocking without accountability, especially in emergency situations. Curtails press freedom and enables suppression of independent journalism without due justification. Sharma further questioned why only the Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s stance among government bodies was used as a basis for action, while the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, CoC, Resolution Professional, and others had no objection to his platform. Editors Guild Condemns Action: The Editors Guild of India has strongly condemned the blocking, calling it an example of opaque executive action and part of a 'troubling pattern' of curbing free speech through non-transparent processes. It pointed to previous takedowns of The Kashmir Wallah and Vikatan, and emphasized that national security cannot become a pretext to silence critical journalism. The petition, filed through advocates Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Talha Abdul Rahman, and M Shaz Khan, seeks urgent restoration of the 4PM channel and a constitutional review of India's internet censorship rules. Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
