Setback for Telegram, court says government's temporary ban isn't disproportionate
Setback for Telegram, court says government's temporary ban isn't disproportionate
M.U.H
19/06/202623
The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Central government’s decision to temporarily restrict access to instant messaging platform Telegram ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination, holding that the measures adopted by the government were proportionate and narrowly tailored to address concerns over examination malpractice.
Justice Tejas Karia delivered the verdict, dismissing Telegram’s plea challenging the blocking order issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Pronouncing the decision, the Court observed, "The government's measures are the least restrictive. It cannot be held that the order is disproportionate."
The government had imposed the temporary restriction citing apprehensions that Telegram was being used by organised cheating networks allegedly involved in the NEET-UG controversy.
The re-examination was scheduled following the cancellation of the original NEET-UG exam conducted on May 3 after allegations of paper leaks and irregularities surfaced. The matter remains under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Acting on recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA), the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) directed temporary suspension of access to Telegram in India till June 22.
In addition, the government instructed the platform to disable the message-editing function for previously posted messages until June 30.
Telegram moved the High Court challenging the order, arguing that the government had unfairly targeted the platform while permitting other social media intermediaries to continue operating without similar restrictions. The company contended that the action violated Article 14 of the Constitution and lacked proportionality.
During the proceedings, Telegram maintained that it had been actively engaging with government agencies since May and had submitted detailed explanations regarding its moderation practices and compliance efforts.
According to the company, once authorities shared specific URLs on June 9, the content was removed within an hour.
Telegram further stated that it had taken down more than 900 links associated with unlawful NEET-related content and had deployed artificial intelligence, machine learning systems and human moderation teams to detect and remove policy violations.
The messaging aggregator also submitted that it had responded to concerns relating to the platform’s structure and remained compliant with applicable rules.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Telegram, questioned the rationale behind the blocking order and argued that there was insufficient application of mind by the authorities while invoking Section 69A powers.
Referring to the government’s order, he argued, "The order says, "in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India?" An examination like NEET will affect the sovereignty and integrity of India? What is the application of mind?"
Mehta reiterated that Telegram had remained in continuous communication with authorities and had taken proactive action against flagged channels and content.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the government’s action and argued that authorities had adopted the least restrictive available option to prevent further paper leaks and maintain exam integrity.
He submitted that Telegram’s architecture limited effective intervention during such circumstances and pointed to the platform’s privacy framework, under which account deletion could result in deletion of stored data, messages and media.
Arguing against judicial interference, the Solicitor General said the consequences of misuse were substantial and preventive action was justified.
Attorney General R Venkataramani also supported the government’s position and argued, "The order is complete in itself. This platform, because of its architecture, is a Frankenstein. If a country like ours cannot take preventive action, then where do we go? A platform created for money says proportionality? The argument of proportionality is completely misconceived."
The Court had reserved judgment on June 18 after hearing detailed submissions from both sides. Telegram’s writ petition was filed through Advocate Madhav Khosla. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit also represented the Centre.
