The Crossbill News Desk
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (June 18) reserved its verdict on Telegram’s challenge to the Union government’s decision to temporarily block access to the messaging platform ahead of the NEET 2026 re-test, with the court questioning whether the rights of millions of users could be curtailed to address concerns over examination malpractice.
According to Live Law, Justice Tejas Karia made the observations while hearing Telegram’s plea against the Centre’s order restricting access to the platform until June 22. The move was undertaken in view of the NEET re-test scheduled for June 21.
“Can we stop rights of 150 million people just because one set of citizens are appearing in exams? Can you block someone else’s right to protect somebody else? Is your exercise of right in facts and circumstances proportional?” asked Justice Karia during the hearing.
At the same time, the judge also questioned Telegram over the adequacy of measures adopted by the platform to prevent the circulation of leaked examination papers and related content.
“Whether your architecture is such that less restrictive measures will meet the requirement?” the Judge asked Telegram.
Representing Telegram, senior advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the Centre could, at most, direct the removal of specific objectionable content and that a blanket ban on the platform amounted to a disproportionate response.
In an affidavit submitted before the court, the Union government contended that Telegram’s technical framework and operating features posed distinct challenges to law enforcement agencies.
“Telegram possesses certain technical and architectural features that distinguish it from other intermediaries and materially affect the ability of law enforcement agencies to prevent, detect and investigate unlawful activities on the platform…Telegram provides a dedicated Bot infrastructure, enabling the creation and deployment of automated accounts capable of functioning without continuous human intervention. These bots can automatically disseminate content, redirect users to channels, send bulk communications, collect information, and perform other actions at scale,” Affidavit stated.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the design of the application complicated investigative efforts.
During the proceedings, Telegram maintained that the leaked paper circulating on the platform was fake and that misinformation regarding a paper leak was being spread. Responding to the submission, the court orally observed, “How do you know that? Problem is there is a paper.”
The Solicitor General further referred to Telegram's privacy-oriented features, including hidden phone numbers, virtual numbers and VPN services.
“This feature significantly impedes the ability of law enforcement agencies to identify co-conspirators, trace communication chains, and establish attribution during the course of investigation,” he said.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to restrict access to Telegram, a decision subsequently announced by the National Testing Agency as part of efforts to prevent another examination leak.
The move has attracted criticism from digital rights advocates. The Internet Freedom Foundation described the shutdown as “a band aid solution” and a “disproportionate answer to exam fraud.”
The temporary restriction comes against the backdrop of the cancellation of the original NEET-UG examination last month following widespread allegations of paper leaks, an episode that triggered protests across the country and intensified demands for the resignation of the Union education minister.
According to Live Law, Justice Tejas Karia made the observations while hearing Telegram’s plea against the Centre’s order restricting access to the platform until June 22. The move was undertaken in view of the NEET re-test scheduled for June 21.
“Can we stop rights of 150 million people just because one set of citizens are appearing in exams? Can you block someone else’s right to protect somebody else? Is your exercise of right in facts and circumstances proportional?” asked Justice Karia during the hearing.
At the same time, the judge also questioned Telegram over the adequacy of measures adopted by the platform to prevent the circulation of leaked examination papers and related content.
“Whether your architecture is such that less restrictive measures will meet the requirement?” the Judge asked Telegram.
Representing Telegram, senior advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the Centre could, at most, direct the removal of specific objectionable content and that a blanket ban on the platform amounted to a disproportionate response.
In an affidavit submitted before the court, the Union government contended that Telegram’s technical framework and operating features posed distinct challenges to law enforcement agencies.
“Telegram possesses certain technical and architectural features that distinguish it from other intermediaries and materially affect the ability of law enforcement agencies to prevent, detect and investigate unlawful activities on the platform…Telegram provides a dedicated Bot infrastructure, enabling the creation and deployment of automated accounts capable of functioning without continuous human intervention. These bots can automatically disseminate content, redirect users to channels, send bulk communications, collect information, and perform other actions at scale,” Affidavit stated.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the design of the application complicated investigative efforts.
During the proceedings, Telegram maintained that the leaked paper circulating on the platform was fake and that misinformation regarding a paper leak was being spread. Responding to the submission, the court orally observed, “How do you know that? Problem is there is a paper.”
The Solicitor General further referred to Telegram's privacy-oriented features, including hidden phone numbers, virtual numbers and VPN services.
“This feature significantly impedes the ability of law enforcement agencies to identify co-conspirators, trace communication chains, and establish attribution during the course of investigation,” he said.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to restrict access to Telegram, a decision subsequently announced by the National Testing Agency as part of efforts to prevent another examination leak.
The move has attracted criticism from digital rights advocates. The Internet Freedom Foundation described the shutdown as “a band aid solution” and a “disproportionate answer to exam fraud.”
The temporary restriction comes against the backdrop of the cancellation of the original NEET-UG examination last month following widespread allegations of paper leaks, an episode that triggered protests across the country and intensified demands for the resignation of the Union education minister.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment