This legal directive stems from a case involving the alleged use of Proton Mail to send abusive, obscene emails and distribute AI-generated deepfake content. While the full details of the case remain under wraps, the court deemed the misuse significant enough to warrant a complete block of the service across India.

This incident is more than just an isolated legal decision. It highlights the tension between privacy and security, innovation and regulation, and global digital norms versus domestic governance. With India’s increasing focus on regulating cyberspace, the Proton Mail ban signals a pivotal moment in the country’s stance on digital privacy, surveillance resistance, and the rights of its online citizens.

Why Was Proton Mail Blocked?

At the center of this action lies a troubling concern—Proton Mail was reportedly exploited to send obscene and AI-generated deepfake content via email, which law enforcement authorities believe posed significant harm.
This isn’t Proton Mail’s first brush with controversy in India. In 2023, authorities linked the platform to hoax bomb threats, prompting calls for stricter oversight of encrypted communication channels. Now, with the rise of AI-generated synthetic media and anonymous threats, Proton Mail has come under renewed scrutiny.

But why is Proton Mail so difficult to regulate? Here’s why:

• End-to-end encryption: Emails are encrypted from sender to receiver, making it impossible for even Proton to access message content.
• Swiss jurisdiction: Being headquartered in Switzerland, Proton is subject to strict Swiss privacy laws. Any data request must go through Swiss legal channels.
• No default IP logging: Proton Mail’s architecture avoids collecting identifiable user metadata, making tracing malicious actors difficult.

This surveillance-resistant design, lauded by digital rights advocates worldwide, has now become the very reason for regulatory backlash in India.

The Encryption Dilemma: A Double-Edged Sword

Encryption is a fundamental pillar of cybersecurity and digital autonomy. It ensures that sensitive information—be it personal, corporate, legal, or journalistic—remains confidential.

Here’s how encryption benefits different stakeholders:

• Journalists and activists in authoritarian regimes use services like Proton Mail to protect whistleblowers and sources.
• Corporate entities use encrypted platforms to secure business-critical communications.
• Legal and healthcare professionals rely on encryption to meet confidentiality and compliance standards.

Yet the same technology is also misused:

• Cybercriminals use encrypted channels to conduct scams and extortion.
• Extremists and hate groups spread anonymous threats with impunity.
• Fraudsters and deepfake creators exploit these platforms for digital manipulation.

This creates a tough balancing act. Weakening encryption can expose everyday users to surveillance and cyberattacks. On the other hand, absolute privacy can hinder investigations and embolden bad actors.
The answer, however, is not banning encryption outright—but building smarter tools and frameworks to address misuse without dismantling digital freedom.

Cybersecurity Trends and India’s Enforcement Readiness (2023–2025)

The ban on Proton Mail must be viewed in the larger context of India’s digital threat landscape. Here are some eye-opening statistics:

• 63% of cybercrimes in India in 2023 involved anonymization tools like encrypted emails, VPNs, or Tor browsers. (Source: NCRB Annual Report, 2023)
• 35% increase in adoption of encrypted email platforms in 2024, driven by surveillance concerns and rising corporate espionage. (Source: CyberMedia Research)
• 170% spike in deepfake-related crimes between 2022 and 2024, particularly in blackmail and defamation cases. (Source: CERT-IN)
• India’s cybersecurity budget saw a modest 12% rise in 2024-25, despite a 38% increase in cybercrime cases. (Source: Ministry of Electronics and IT)
• Less than 20% of India’s cybercrime units are equipped with advanced digital forensic tools to handle encrypted communications. (Source: Indian Cyber Policing Readiness Survey, 2024)

These trends show a critical need: enforcement capability must evolve to match modern threats—not rely on outdated or heavy-handed censorship models.

Global Case Studies: How Other Countries Handle Encryption

India’s dilemma is part of a larger global conversation. Governments worldwide are grappling with how to secure their citizens without infringing on privacy.

United States: The EARN IT Act

Proposed restrictions on encrypted communication under the guise of child protection. Civil liberties organizations opposed it, and it has since stalled.

United Kingdom: The Online Safety Bill

Introduced obligations for companies to scan encrypted content for harmful material. It faced backlash from companies like WhatsApp and Signal, citing threats to privacy and security.

European Union: Chat Control

A controversial proposal to monitor private messages. Critics warn it could open doors to mass surveillance under the guise of child safety.

Australia: Encryption Law Amendments

Since 2018, Australian agencies have had authority to compel tech companies to provide access to encrypted data. The law damaged Australia’s tech reputation and trust in its privacy framework.

The global lesson? Efforts to curb encryption often result in public outrage, legal challenges, and weakened trust in digital services.

Proton Mail’s Trust Model: Privacy with Accountability

Despite being under fire, Proton Mail has demonstrated a commitment to responsible privacy: 

• Transparency reports show the number of legal data requests it receives and complies with.
• Zero-access encryption ensures that even Proton employees can’t read users’ emails.
• Jurisdictional accountability: All user data disclosures must pass through Swiss legal procedures.
• No default IP logging, meaning user anonymity is preserved unless specifically enabled for abuse investigation.

Proton’s stance is simple: “We protect privacy, not criminals.”

This distinction matters. It's not about enabling illegal activity; it's about upholding digital autonomy in an age of mass surveillance.

DigiAlert’s Recommendations: A Smarter Path Forward

At DigiAlert, we believe that security and privacy are not mutually exclusive. While protecting national interest is vital, the approach must be nuanced and technologically informed.

Here’s what we recommend instead of outright bans:

1. Public–Private Data Frameworks 

Government agencies should collaborate with encrypted service providers under formal agreements that respect international law and user rights. Cross-border mutual legal assistance can be streamlined for faster, lawful data access.

2. AI-Driven Threat Detection

Deploy artificial intelligence and machine learning to analyze metadata patterns, communication frequency, and anomalous behaviors—without decrypting messages.

3. Granular Moderation Instead of Blanket Bans

Rather than block entire platforms, regulators should request suspension of specific accounts or takedown of harmful content. This surgical approach is more effective and proportionate.

4. Legal Transparency in Section 69A Orders

All blocking directives issued under Section 69A should be published or reviewed by an independent judicial body to prevent abuse and increase public trust.

5. Invest in Cyber Forensics and Training

Equip police cyber units with modern digital forensic tools, encryption-handling capabilities, and technical training to enhance their investigative efficiency.
India must focus on becoming cyber-resilient—not just reactive.

Security vs. Liberty: The Core Debate

At its heart, the Proton Mail ban sparks a deeper philosophical question:

Can we achieve true national security without compromising civil liberties?

A surveillance-first approach risks creating an environment where:

• Journalists self-censor.
• Whistleblowers stay silent.
• Businesses relocate due to loss of trust.

But unchecked privacy also enables anonymous harm, fake news, and digital blackmail.
So, where do we draw the line?

That line must be drawn through public debate, democratic oversight, and technologically informed regulation—not opaque censorship or knee-jerk bans.

Join the Conversation

As cybersecurity professionals, legal experts, entrepreneurs, and citizens of a digital world, we must ask ourselves:

Should governments have the power to block encrypted services altogether?
Is it time to modernize Section 69A of the IT Act with transparency and judicial safeguards?
Can India lead the way in balancing national security with global privacy standards?

Your voice matters in this conversation.

Stay Connected 

For more expert insights on encryption, cybersecurity policy, and emerging threats:
Follow DigiAlert Connect with VinodSenthil on LinkedIn.

Let’s shape a secure, private, and free digital future—together.