If you’re asking for perfect consistency in laws being enforced, then you’re going to be disappointed, regardless of the country or context. That’s just the reality of existence - between scenarios being legitimately complex in ways that we don’t easily understand, limited resources, trade-offs between competing values and preferences (even within a given individual, never mind different groups), and good old fashioned errors of judgement, there’s a lot of scope for what can appear as unequal treatment.
And of course there’s issues like imperfect reporting, cultural misunderstandings, and psychological biases all along the line making things even harder.
Which is why I don’t find it terribly helpful to look at ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ - better to look at, for example, why this decision? And if it went the other way, would that be preferable? For example, in this situation, let us assume it unfolded differently: the threats were sent, the Indian government reached out to Proton.
Scenario 1: Proton, in accordance to Swiss law, refused to hand over the information. India decided that a foreign company violating Indian law is no big deal, and left it alone.
Scenario 2: Proton breaks Swiss law and does hand over the information of a user - who may or may not be in Switzerland, India, or some other country, a question to which Proton may or may not know the answer to - to a foreign government.
Which of these two scenarios is preferable to you? Yes, we’d all prefer the laws be different and the threats were not sent, but that’s not the world we live in. In this world, can you honestly say one scenario is obviously better than another, both in terms of this individual situation but also precedent set?