Latest news with #MNagaprasanna
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Business
- Indian Express
There is no legislation behind the creation of Sahyog portal, X argues in Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on X Corp's challenge to central takedown orders issued for social media platforms under the Information Technology Act's section 79 (3) (b). In its closing arguments, X said there was no legal backing to the creation of the Sahyog portal, which it has called a 'censorship portal'. The Digipub News India Foundation, a non-profit organisation formed by digital news outlets, also made submissions before the single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, which has been hearing the case. X has been arguing before the court that takedown orders against social media posts should be issued under Information Technology Act section 69A, and not section 79 (3) (b), stating that the latter section, along with certain rules, allows too much leeway for government officials to strip the 'safe harbour' provisions without a judicial process. 'Safe harbour' provisions protect intermediaries like X Corp from liability for content posted on their platforms by users. Objections have also been raised to the Sahyog portal, which the government has referred to as a way to 'automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries' but which X Corp has called a 'censorship portal'. The Centre has also argued that X is the only such intermediary not to join the portal. Making the last submissions for X in the case before the court, senior advocate K G Raghavan stated, 'Sahyog has no statutory backing and if there was a statutory backing, the law would have provided for it… upon consideration of the structure of the IT Act, it does not appear so.' He argued that section 26(2) of the IT Act indicated the circumstances in which such a website would be created, which was not found in the subsections of section 79 of the IT Act. He had also raised the possibility of conflict between the existing provisions, stating, 'Let us take a situation where one officer says 'I will use 79 (3) (b)'. Another officer says 'no, I should go under 69(A)' and all the procedure takes place – and the authority comes to the conclusion that it is not something we want to block… Direct conflict. This is exactly what should be prevented. 69(A) can be overridden by an officer sitting in any remote corner of the country.' Arguing on behalf of Digipub, senior advocate Aditya Sondhi stated, 'Even a subtle effort by the State….the right of a media house to hold land etc have all been found to be indirect methods of scuttling esteemed Solicitor General had placed some extreme examples of phishing, deepfakes etc to drive home the need for this sort of regulation. Extreme examples can make bad law.' He added, 'We need to deal with these, it cannot be disputed. But the use of the phrase 'unlawful act' in the rules being as vague…it is bereft of definition. If there is a need to fill a vacuum, it needs to be done legislatively and not in a roundabout manner.' The court subsequently reserved its judgment in the matter.
Scroll.in
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Why a court ban on encrypted email service Proton Mail has sparked digital privacy fears
A two-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court is now hearing a challenge filed by Proton AG, the Swiss company that runs the encrypted email service, Proton Mail. On April 29, a single judge of the high court had directed the Union government to block the service in India, setting off a wave of criticism from digital rights advocates. Many of them told Scroll that the court's ban set a dangerous precedent that threatens the privacy of whistle-blowers, activists, journalists, and others who rely on encryption for more secure communications. They said the court had erred in blaming encryption for Proton's alleged non-cooperation with the Karnataka police in its investigation into online harassment by anonymous culprits through its email service. What did the High Court order say? The case began when a Bengaluru-based organisation approached the High Court after some of its female employees were subjected to prolonged online harassment. The company received a torrent of emails from two Proton Mail accounts containing obscene and abusive content, including morphed images of the employees. The company filed a police complaint and reached out to Proton Mail's abuse team. While Proton disabled the offending accounts, it could not provide the company personally identifiable details of the sender of the mail. This is because, it informed the company, under Swiss law, it could only disclose user data upon receiving a formal legal request from Swiss authorities through established international cooperation channels. The police investigation hit a similar wall. The police told the court that they could not identify the culprit through the mutual legal assistance arrangements between India and Switzerland. However, the judgment didn't clarify what specific steps were taken or where those efforts stalled. Nevertheless, Justice M Nagaprasanna took a stern view of the matter in his judgment. Describing the situation as a 'menace', he noted that Proton Mail had also been used to send bomb threats to schools and even to the Chief Minister of Karnataka. 'The State machinery [is] hamstrung by the absence of enforceable cooperation from Proton AG,' Nagaprasanna observed. 'This Court fails to understand the complacency of the Union of India in not taking action towards blocking the Proton Mail…' Concluding that the court could not remain a 'mute spectator', the judge directed the Union government to initiate proceedings to block Proton Mail in India under the Information Technology Act. 'Troubling precedent' As of July 25, Proton Mail was still accessible in India. While the court's intent to protect the victims of harassment is clear, technology lawyers and digital rights advocates raised concerns about the order's sweeping nature and its wider implications. They argue that blocking an entire service used by many for the criminal acts of a few is a disproportionate response that could undermine digital security for everyone. The order 'sets a troubling precedent,' said Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, a digital civil rights organisation. 'It signals that entire encrypted services can be taken down based on allegations linked to a handful of users.' A ban could lead to a domino effect, warned Apar Gupta, lawyer and founder director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. 'Other encrypted platforms could face pressure to weaken their security or risk being blocked,' he explained. 'This approach may inadvertently chill free expression, as journalists, activists and at-risk communities who rely on encrypted communications for safety might feel less secure.' This view was echoed by technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary. 'In today's day of heightened cyber security issues and surveillance, privacy-protecting technologies are more crucial than ever,' she said. Blocking Proton Mail would not eliminate online abuse either, said technologist and interdisciplinary researcher Rohini Lakshané. 'Malicious actors can simply migrate to other encrypted email providers or deploy additional anonymisation techniques,' she said. The fear is that the High Court's order could give cover to authorities to take a heavy-handed approach towards any platform that offers privacy. 'This move will embolden the bureaucracy and the political powers to act first and think later,' cautioned Tanveer Hasan, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, an internet and digital technologies research organisation. As Choudhary noted, 'India cannot be a destination that issues blocking orders at the drop of a hat if investigative authorities aren't able to access some data.' Gupta warned that the order would create legal uncertainty for overseas service providers. 'Those in jurisdictions with strict privacy laws could be caught between home-country obligations and Indian court demands, deterring them from offering services in India,' he said. Encryption versus user identification A key point of contention is the court's conflation of the protection of a message's content with the ability to identify a user. The court identified encryption as a factor for the police's failed investigation – without explaining how. Encrypted services like Proton Mail are prevented from seeing the content of messages sent on their platforms, but may still access user metadata, such as internet protocol address – a unique alphanumerical identifier assigned to each computer connected to the internet – from which an account was created or accessed. Nikhil Narendran, a partner at the law firm Trilegal, argued that the ban was based on a misunderstanding of the technology 'Encryption only protects the content of a message but does not prevent a receiver or sender from disclosing it wilfully,' he explained. 'It also doesn't prevent a company from disclosing user information once the content is disclosed.' This metadata can be a crucial tool for law enforcement to trace the origin of a criminal act. In 2021, Proton Mail handed over the internet protocol address of French Proton Mail users to the French police upon an order by the Swiss government. 'So, the idea that Proton Mail is immune to legal process is simply not true,' Chima said. Sharveya Parasnis, a journalist at the technology policy portal Medianama, questioned the court's invocation of encryption. 'I don't know if the case is about encryption as much as it is about the obligation of foreign companies to comply with Indian law enforcement requests for user data,' he said. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandate that online platforms 'enable the identification' of anyone communicating through the platform upon a government or court order. The right way forward? Experts pointed out that a blanket ban failed the three-part test for restricting fundamental rights laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark privacy judgment in 2018. Any restriction must be lawful, necessary and, crucially, proportionate. 'Here, less intrusive options clearly existed,' Chima said. He and other experts Scroll spoke with argued that instead of resorting to bans, Indian authorities should strengthen and use existing legal channels. India and Switzerland are both signatories to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, a formal mechanism for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations. The treaty should be reformed 'so investigators can lawfully obtain data in a timely manner,' suggested Gupta. 'Regulators can also establish clear, transparent protocols for engaging with encrypted services based abroad, and even update outdated agreements to address modern cybercrime.' Rahul Narayan, a partner at the law firm Chandhiok & Mahajan who has expertise in privacy and data protection, batted for more legislative clarity in such situations. 'Precise parameters for when a service may be blocked should be laid down in a legislation, rather than decided on an ad-hoc basis by courts,' he said.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Karnataka high court quashes dowry harassment case against in-laws, but allows trial against husband
Bengaluru: The high court quashed the proceedings against parents and a relative of a 25-year-old Bengaluru resident in a dowry harassment case. Justice M Nagaprasanna noted the allegations against these individuals lacked merit, particularly as the complainant herself admitted to a secret marriage unknown to the family. The case involves two individuals who met in their college years. The complainant frequently visited the man's residence, occasionally threatening self-harm if marriage was refused. This led to the man's father filing a police complaint on Oct 23, 2021, at Subramanyanagar police station. Following police intervention, the woman provided a written assurance to cease troubling the family. Subsequently, the couple eloped to Hassan, marrying on Jan 12, 2023, with registration completed on Jan 13, 2023. They lived separately, with the family unaware of these developments. The relationship deteriorated shortly after, leading to woman filing a complaint alleging various offences, including forced sexual relations when she was underage, brutal assault post-marriage, and stalking with threats to expose private content which the man allegedly recorded on his mobile. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The complaint also included charges under multiple acts, including SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Pocso Act , Dowry Prohibition Act, Information Technology Act, and various BNS sections. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 World's Prettiest Star In The History Half Eddie Read More Undo The other accused were charged with public abuse under the Atrocities Act. The petitioners contested these allegations, arguing no prima facie case existed. They maintained the marriage was voluntary, and the complaint emerged as retaliation to divorce proceedings. Earlier complaints did not mention sexual assault claims, which were later added, citing incidents from Aug 4, 2019, Sept 4, 2019, and Sept 29, 2019. The court found allegations against petitioners 2 to 4 (parents and relative) lacking substantial evidence and legal basis. Justice Nagaprasanna also observed the requirements for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, particularly regarding public humiliation based on caste, were absent. However, the judge maintained proceedings against the husband, citing serious allegations including Pocso Act violations and rape charges prior to marriage, which necessitate a complete trial.
Indian Express
23-07-2025
- Sport
- Indian Express
‘Justice delayed… is dignity diminished': Karnataka HC slaps Rs 2 lakh fine on Govt officials over delaying para-swimmer's cash reward
The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed officials of the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports to pay an international-level disabled swimmer more than Rs 1.26 lakh as a pending cash award, and imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on them. In the order, Justice M Nagaprasanna also directed the department's officers to bear the sum of Rs 2 lakh in litigation expenses personally. The petitioner, Vishwas K S, is a swimmer with multiple medals at the international level who had lost his arms at a young age in an accident. Based on a 2013 Karnataka Government notification granting cash awards to international para-swimmer medalists, he had approached the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports in March 2018 for a cash award of Rs 6 lakh. After failing to receive the full amount despite multiple representations, he approached the High Court. His counsel argued Vishwas had been subjected to inhumane treatment as he was not given his dues as a disabled person, and was entitled to equal treatment. The opposing counsel said he was paid Rs 4.6 lakh, which was the actual amount due, and pointed out that the association he represented had been disqualified from April 2015 to June 2016. The bench observed that although a different notification governing such awards was issued in 2017, the swimmer's events took place during the pendency of the 2013 government notification. Under this, he would be eligible for Rs 4 lakh for two international silver medals, and another Rs 2 lakh for international bronze medals in various events. 'The association's suspension or its subsequent revocation cannot deprive a deserving athlete of his rightful reward… It is the said sportsperson's effort during the sporting event that they would win a medal for the nation or the state, as the case would be, which would entitle them to get such cash rewards….focus must not be on bureaucratic technicalities, but on the living human spirit that triumphed against colossal odds,' the bench said. '…for having driven a disabled person to bear the brunt of litigation, the officers of the State must be mulcted with payment of exemplary costs. The costs are to be imposed as a caution or to serve as a reminder to the officers of the State that justice delayed, especially to those who overcome the gravest of odds like the petitioner, is not only justice denied, but dignity diminished,' the bench added.
Deccan Herald
15-07-2025
- Deccan Herald
Karnataka High Court quashes rape case filed by Bengaluru woman over failed marriage talks
Citing Supreme Court judgements on the issue, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that mere break-up between the couple, who were in a relationship for a long time, cannot result in the offence of rape under IPC section 376.
