Can Foreign Entities Insist That India Route Investigation Requests Through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty? Karnataka High Court Asks Centre

In the matter concerning the blocking of Proton Mail in India, the Karnataka High Court on July 14 [ Tuesday] directed the Union of India to clarify on affidavit whether foreign entities can refuse to cooperate with Indian investigation authorities by citing the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).

A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is a bilateral or multilateral agreement that allows countries to formally share evidence, locate suspects, and gather information for criminal investigations and prosecutions. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha was hearing an appeal filed by Proton AG, the Swiss-based operator of Proton Mail, against a Single Judge's order directing the Union of India to initiate proceedings under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2009, to block the encrypted email service in India.

The Court had earlier observed that the principal issue in the matter was whether foreign parties could refuse to cooperate with investigation authorities by citing MLAT as the only permissible mode of communication.

Today, the Union of India submitted that MLAT is the correct procedure to be followed in this context. The central government supported Proton's stance that valid service of legal notices must be through MLAT, not through private advocates or registered post.

In the previous hearings, Proton had said that that it did not act on receipt of a notice issued by the advocate through registered post as there was no order authorising the same. However, immediately on receipt of the copy of the order issued through the Swiss Authorities, the appellant had complied with the same, it said. 

Proton had also told the court that it did not receive any notice from the court.

Proton insisted that it never disputed its obligation to comply with all lawful orders passed by the authorities or the courts of law. However, in the present case, the said orders were not communicated to it in accordance with law, Proton had said.

For context, proceedings to block Proton's services were initiated by the Union of India under Section 69A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2009, read with Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, in pursuance of the single judge bench order.

However, the Division Bench in appeal had temporarily stayed the blocking of service in India on March 16.

Background

Moser Designs had initially filed a complaint with police in relation to the criminal and illegal usage of Proton Mail, by which its senior female employees have been repeatedly targeted through the issuance of e-mails containing obscene, abusive and vulgar language and sexually coloured and derogatory remarks along with Al generated deepfake images and other sexually explicit content.

It was claimed in the plea that the emails containing this content were issued to a large number of its staff, associates, vendors and competitors, resulting in irreparable reputational and psychological harm to the concerned employees.

Further, it was contended that despite the registration of the FIR on 09.11.2024, no effective steps were taken by the police to identify the accused person(s), compelling the company to move the Jurisdictional Magistrate with an application to monitor the police investigation. On being directed by the court the police filed a status report indicating that no concrete or effective steps were taken and use of a Mutual Legal assistance arrangement between India and Switzerland, was not done.

Moser filed a plea before single judge for issuance of a direction to police to collect all necessary information and documents pertaining to the sender of the offending email, through the mutual legal assistance arrangements between India and Switzerland in a time-bound manner.

The plea further sought that the police be directed to forthwith seek issuance of Letters Rogatory/legal request through the jurisdictional magistrate, to the Federal Office of Justice, Switzerland for supply of all relevant information and documentation pertaining to the sender of the offending email.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had in the order from 2025 stated as below:

“…If blocking of such mail hubs are not done by the nation, it is likely lead to threatening of the security of the nation by, generating false alarms or sometimes communication of mails which are derogatory, defamatory, touching upon the integrity of the nation. It is therefore, necessary for the Government of India to forthwith take steps in terms of Rule 10 supra”.

The matter is next listed on October 8. 

Case Title: Proton AG v. M Moser Design Associates

Case No: WA 995/2025