The Bombay High Court has issued a significant interim order addressing the growing threat of anonymous, cross-border digital defamation targeting corporate entities. In a case involving unsubstantiated allegations disseminated via encrypted email and WhatsApp channels, the Court recognized the urgent need for judicial intervention to protect reputational integrity in the digital age, setting a precedent for how courts may respond to jurisdictionally complex cyber harassment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Pantomath Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd., a regulated financial entity, alleges a coordinated campaign of malicious online defamation by an anonymous individual operating under the pseudonym "John Doe." The defendant allegedly sent multiple emails from a Proton AG email account ([email protected]) to the plaintiff and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), making unsubstantiated claims of fraud, corruption, and regulatory violations. These emails were accompanied by threatening WhatsApp messages sent to the company’s directors, all lacking evidentiary support.
Procedural History
- August 16, 2025: First defamatory email sent from Proton AG account to plaintiff and SEBI
- September 9, 2025: Plaintiff filed formal complaint with investigating authorities
- October 15, 2025: Final defamatory email sent; plaintiff identified origin as Switzerland (Proton AG) and UK (WhatsApp number +44 7818)
- October 17, 2025: Suit filed in Bombay High Court seeking urgent interim relief
- January 29, 2026: Court heard application and granted ad-interim injunction
Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought four interim reliefs: (a) restraint on further dissemination of defamatory content; (b) disclosure of user data from Proton AG; (c) removal or blocking of defamatory content; and (d) direction to Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) to enforce compliance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may grant interim injunctive relief against an anonymous online actor and their foreign-based service provider under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, where the harm is reputational, the perpetrator is unidentified, and the infrastructure lies beyond territorial jurisdiction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud argued that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defamation under Section 499 BNS and Section 66A IT Act (as interpreted post-Shreya Singhal). He relied on M/s. Moser Design Associates v. State of Karnataka, where the Karnataka High Court had directed blocking of Proton AG email IDs due to similar malicious activity. He emphasized the irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s business reputation and regulatory standing, noting SEBI had taken no action against the plaintiff despite the allegations.
For the Respondent
No appearance or submissions were made by the defendants, including Proton AG and the anonymous actor. The Court proceeded ex parte, noting the defendants’ non-participation did not preclude judicial intervention where the harm was evident and the plaintiff had discharged its burden of proof on the face of the record.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the communications and found them to be malicious, unsubstantiated, and clearly defamatory. It noted that the plaintiff had not merely alleged harm but had produced contemporaneous email transcripts and WhatsApp logs corroborating the pattern of harassment. The Court distinguished this from legitimate whistleblowing by emphasizing the absence of any factual basis, the use of encrypted platforms to evade accountability, and the targeted nature of the communications.
"The campaign sought to be run by Defendant No.1 is on face of record malicious, unsubstantiated and undoubtedly affects the reputation of the Plaintiff."
The Court held that reputational harm in the digital sphere constitutes irreparable injury, justifying interim relief even against unknown parties. It invoked the principle that courts must adapt procedural mechanisms to address modern forms of harm, particularly where traditional identification methods fail. The Court further held that service providers like Proton AG, while foreign, could be directed to disclose user data under Section 69B IT Act, which empowers courts to require intermediaries to assist in investigations. The involvement of I4C was deemed necessary to ensure enforcement of the order across jurisdictions.
The Verdict
The plaintiff succeeded. The Court granted ad-interim injunctions restraining the anonymous defendant from further dissemination, directing Proton AG to disclose all user data related to the email ID in a sealed cover, ordering removal of defamatory content, and directing I4C to ensure compliance. The matter was listed for further hearing on February 11, 2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Relief Is Available Against Anonymous Actors
- Practitioners may now seek ex parte interim injunctions against John Doe defendants in digital defamation cases, provided they produce contemporaneous, verifiable evidence of malicious content
- Courts will not require identification of the perpetrator at the interim stage if the harm is clear and the platform is identifiable
Service Providers Can Be Compelled to Disclose Data
- Foreign-based email and messaging platforms can be directed to disclose user logs, IP addresses, and registration details under Section 69B IT Act if the content is prima facie illegal
- Courts may treat such disclosures as part of the evidentiary process, not as a violation of privacy absent judicial oversight
Regulatory Compliance as a Shield Against Defamation
- Companies under regulatory scrutiny (e.g., SEBI-regulated entities) can leverage their clean compliance record to rebut allegations of wrongdoing
- Evidence of regulatory non-action against the plaintiff strengthens the claim of malicious intent by the accuser
