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
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
SC issues notice to Jharkhand HC over long-pending verdicts
New Delhi/Ranchi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Jharkhand High Court while hearing a petition filed by 10 convicts, including six on death row, who alleged inordinate delay in the pronouncement of judgment on their appeals. The petitioners had approached the Jharkhand High Court between 2018 and 2019, challenging their convictions by a lower court. Despite the completion of hearings in 2022-23, the High Court has yet to deliver its verdict, which prompted the convicts to move apex court. Out of the 10 petitioners, six were sentenced to death and the remaining four to life imprisonment. Nine of them are currently lodged in Birsa Munda Central Jail in Hotwar, Ranchi, while one has recently been released on bail from Dumka jail. A bench comprising Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the judge who reserved judgment in all these appeals is the same in each case, raising questions about the prolonged delay. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Fauzia Shakil argued that withholding a verdict for years after hearings are concluded constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to speedy justice. Shakil highlighted the mental anguish faced by the convicts due to the delay, especially those awaiting execution. She cited the Supreme Court's ruling in HPA International vs Bhagwandas, where the court expressed concern over the practice of reserving judgments indefinitely. The petition also referred to the Jharkhand High Court Rules (2001), which mandate that judgments must be delivered within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments. Further, citing previous Supreme Court rulings related to sentence suspension, the advocate pointed out that convicts who have already served eight years of actual sentence are, in most cases, eligible for bail.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC affirms life term for murder convict, urges Governor to consider pardon
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the life imprisonment of a woman lawyer and her three associates for the 2003 murder of her fiancé, but called on the Karnataka governor to consider their pleas for pardon, observing that society itself cannot escape responsibility for the deviant behavior it often helps shape. The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression (ANI) A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, while affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Karnataka High Court to advocate Shubha Shankarnarayan (42) and her three co-accused, delved deep into the sociological underpinnings of criminality and appealed for compassion, transformation and community responsibility. 'Society, through its own systemic failures, inequalities, or neglect often plays a role in shaping criminal behavior,' the bench said, adding that the responsibility of reintegrating and rehabilitating such offenders must also be borne by the society that may have contributed to their alienation. Shubha, daughter of a prominent Bangalore-based lawyer, was engaged to software engineer BV Girish on November 30, 2003. Four days later, on December 3, she asked Girish to take her out for dinner and then insisted on stopping at a spot on the Indiranagar-Koramangala Intermediate Ring Road to watch airplanes land. There, Girish was attacked and murdered by Arun Verma, Shubha's alleged boyfriend and two of his accomplices. All four were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010. After the high court affirmed their conviction, they had moved the Supreme Court assailing the verdict, which the top court dismissed on Monday. The bench held that the evidence on record was sufficient and endorsed the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Even as it upheld the conviction, the top court refused to end its intervention at a purely punitive level. Citing 161 of the Constitution that vests the power of pardon in the governor, it urged that a broader view of justice be taken in light of the passage of time and subsequent conduct of the convicts. 'The appellants, who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached middle age… They were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure,' said the court, adding that none of the four had attracted any adverse conduct reports from jail authorities since their conviction. Accordingly, the court granted the convicts eight weeks to file appropriate petitions seeking pardon under Article 161. It directed that they shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor has considered their mercy plea. The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression. Describing the internal turmoil of Shubha, it noted: 'The voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind… backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, (it) led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man.' Crime, Justice Sundresh wrote, must be seen not merely as an individual's deviance but as an outcome of multiple interlinked social and psychological factors. 'A crime constitutes a mental rebellion of norms and rules…triggered by causes which are both distant and immediate…The offender becomes a victim, requiring adequate measures for treatment by compassionate correction, structural support, and opportunities for genuine transformation,' said the bench, highlighting the need to move beyond retributive justice. Importantly, the court made a special mention of the gendered dimensions of criminal behaviour and societal control. Referring to the predicament of a young woman forced into an unwanted marriage and denied autonomy, the court observed: 'An unwarranted marriage thrust upon her is the worst form of alienation that she can experience both mentally and physically… A forced marriage, divorcing her from her professional ambitions and curtailing her further education, would certainly warrant a reaction. Such reactions would vary from one woman to another, depending upon the circumstances.'
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC seeks U.P. govt reply in plea on implementation of SC guidelines
: The Allahabad high court has directed the state government to file a better counter-affidavit (reply) with regard to compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines/directions laid down in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) on preventing and addressing incidents of mob lynching and mob violence. The present petition seeks a probe into the alleged incident by a special investigating team (SIT) and ₹ 50 lakh as compensation for the family of the deceased. (File Photo) A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena sought the affidavit while dealing with a petition filed by the brother of a 37-year-old man killed on suspicion of slaughtering cattle in Uttar Pradesh's Moradabad district last year. The present petition seeks a probe into the alleged incident by a special investigating team (SIT) and ₹50 lakh as compensation for the family of the deceased. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the state had not implemented the mandatory safeguards outlined in the Tehseen Poonawalla ruling, which were mentioned as remedial measures, including the top court's directions regarding prompt FIR registration, nodal officer oversight, timely charge sheet filing and compensation. The high court, in its order, recorded that only the investigating officer had filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, and the U.P. government had not shown any steps taken in line with the binding directions of the apex court. 'Thus, the division bench remarked that the U.P. government should file a better counter affidavit/compliance affidavit keeping in view the directions of the apex court in the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla within a period of three weeks,' the bench observed. Noting that the FIR should have been lodged by the police under Section 103(2) of the BNS (mob lynching) but was instead registered under Section 103(1) (Murder), the court stayed the investigation in the FIR until the next date of hearing. The court, in its order dated July 10, directed that the matter will now be heard next on August 5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner alleged that the state government has failed to formulate a Lynching/Mob Violence Compensation Scheme in compliance with the provisions of Section 357A of the criminal procedure code (CrPC), despite the explicit and binding direction in the Tehseen Poonawalla case, which constitutes 'grave' and 'wilful' violation of the rule of law. The petition also requested the court to direct the U.P. government to take disciplinary action against the police officials involved in the matter, as per the Supreme Court's directions to ensure accountability. It also requested the court to direct the government of India to launch public awareness campaigns against mob violence and lynching, highlighting legal consequences, as directed by the Supreme Court. At around 3 am on December 30 last year, Shahedeen and a few others were allegedly caught by a mob for slaughtering a cow for meat. While the others managed to flee, Shahedeen was left behind and was brutally beaten by the mob for nearly an hour. He succumbed to the injuries the next day. Later, Moradabad police booked Shahedeen and his alleged accomplices under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
