NEW DELHI: The high court (HC) recently directed the Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to examine how a woman, who had been reported missing, used an encrypted email service, Proton Mail, despite claims that the service was banned in India.
The court’s directive follows a statement from a police officer, suggesting that Proton Mail was inaccessible in India, which raised questions when the woman’s father submitted an email sent by her through the platform.
Proton Mail, a Swiss-based service renowned for its encryption and commitment to user privacy, has faced scrutiny from Indian authorities, especially after the service was reportedly linked to several hoax bomb threats earlier this year.
The HC’s attention to Proton Mail emerged from two intertwined habeas corpus petitions: one filed by a man searching for his missing wife and children, and another filed by a woman whose adult son had also vanished.
The connection between the cases became clearer when it was discovered that the missing man was last seen with the missing woman. The court had tasked the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) of the MHA to assist in locating the woman and her children, who eventually surrendered on October 8. She claimed to have lost contact with the missing man after a brief encounter. However, before turning herself in, the woman emailed her father through Proton Mail, expressing her desire to return home.
This revelation prompted the court to question the status of Proton Mail in India. Surprised by the platform’s continued availability, given its reported ban, the court instructed the investigating officer (IO) to inform central agencies, including the MHA, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), to investigate how Proton Mail was still being used.
“The availability of the Proton Mail service in India, despite its purported ban, requires clarification. The Delhi Police and relevant government authorities must investigate how the email service is still accessible,” the Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, stated.
Both habeas corpus petitions were closed on October 23, as the missing man also appeared in court. The Bench expressed disappointment over the misleading conduct by parties involved, noting that the missing man’s mother was likely aware of her son’s location. The woman who was previously reported missing also withheld key information during her personal interactions with the judges.
“The State’s resources and considerable judicial time have been diverted due to the misleading actions of multiple parties in this case,” the Bench observed. Concluding the hearing, the court allowed Delhi Police to take action against those found to have misled the investigation.