Delhi High Court raises eyebrows over use of Proton Mail

The Delhi High Court recently asked the the Delhi Police and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to examine how Proton Mail was used by a formerly 'missing' woman in a case after a police officer told the Court that the email service has been banned in India [Runa Devi vs The State NCT of Delhi].

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma took note of the issue last month.

“The Delhi Police/MHA shall also look into the email address/service used by Ms. S i.e., ‘proton.me’/ 'ProtonMail' which is allegedly provided by Proton AG, Switzerland as the same is stated to have been banned," the Court said in an October 23 order.

Proton Mail is an end-to-end encrypted email service that claims to have superior user privacy protection when compared to other email services.

However, after a series of hoax bomb threats were disseminated by using the Proton Mail, the Indian government had considered blocking the email service in India earlier this year.

According to reports from April, the Swiss authorities had intervened to prevent Proton from being banned in India. Notably, Proton also clarified on its official website in March 2024 that its services are still functional in India, contrary to rumours that the Indian government may ban the Swiss company.

The Court had questioned its continued use while dealing with two connected habeas corpus petitions.

One petition was filed by a man claiming that his wife and children had gone missing, while another was filed by a woman who claimed her adult son was also missing. Notably, the missing man was last seen with the missing woman.

After the Court asked the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) to aid in efforts to trace the missing woman and her children, she herself surrendered. She, however, claimed that she was unaware of where the missing man was since they had parted ways after briefly meeting each other.

Notably, before she surrendered before the AHTU on October 8, she sent an email to her father using Proton Mail indicating that she wished to return to her parents' house.

The High Court expressed alarm and surprise when the missing woman's father placed this email on record, since the Court was under the impression that Proton Mail had been banned in India.

In its order, it observed that the investigating officer (IO) in this case had submitted that Proton Mail was banned in the country.

In an October 15 order, the Court therefore asked the IO to inform the Central government about the continued availability of Proton Mail in India.

“This aspect would also need to be investigated as to how the said email address/service is still being made available for users in India given the same is banned ... The IO shall also inform the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and Department of Telecommunication (DoT) of the availability in India of the said email address/ service i.e., ‘proton.me’/ 'Proton Mail', so that the said aspect can be looked into by the concerned authorities,” the Court directed. 

The habeas corpus cases were eventually closed on October 23 after the missing man also turned up in Court.

The Bench was displeased to note that the missing man's mother had apparently filed her petition to mislead the investigation and was aware that her son was being harboured by her daughter and son-in-law.

The Court also noted that the missing woman had concealed these facts when the judges interacted with her personally in their chambers.

"The State machinery as also substantial judicial time have been utilised owing to the deceptive and misleading conduct of several parties involved," the Court noted.

It eventually closed both petitions after adding that the Delhi police is free to take action against the errant parties for their misleading conduct.

Advocates Umesh Sharma, Munish Gaur and Ritesh Kaushik appeared for one of the petitioners before the Court. Advocates AK Srivastava and Mohit Kumar appeared for the other petitioner.

Standing Counsel (criminal) Sanjay Lao with advocates Priyam Agarwal and Abhinav Kr. Arya appeared for the State. 

[Read Order]