Telegram, a platform that boasts an immense user base of over 150 million people in India, strongly opposed the government's actions. The company's leadership was quick to publicly criticize the move. Pavel Durov, Telegram's CEO, published a post on the social media platform X expressing his frustration with the central government's decision. Durov argued that banning the application punishes millions of ordinary users rather than targeting the actual insiders who leaked the examination materials in the first place. He further asserted that a ban is functionally ineffective because the leaks simply migrate to other competing applications. Highlighting the platform's own proactive measures, Durov noted that the company had already removed hundreds of channels sharing leaked materials and related scams. Insisting that Telegram is a "force for good," he categorized the temporary ban as a clear mistake.
Seeking immediate judicial relief, Telegram filed a formal plea challenging the central government's restriction order. The case, officially titled TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, was brought before a vacation bench at the Delhi High Court. The matter was heard extensively on June 18 by Justice Tejas Karia. The courtroom proceedings evolved into a highly complex legal debate weighing the fundamental digital rights of millions of citizens against the state's pressing duty to maintain public order and protect the integrity of a nationwide examination involving 22 lakh students. After hearing rigorous arguments from both the platform's counsel and the government's top legal officers, Justice Karia reserved the verdict.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing Telegram, opened the legal arguments by attacking the procedural and substantive validity of the government's blocking order. His arguments focused heavily on the government's use of Rule 9 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, which provides the state with emergency blocking powers. Mehta argued that invoking this severe emergency provision legally requires the independent satisfaction of the designated officer. However, according to Telegram's legal counsel, there was a complete lack of application of mind regarding the actual material evidence. He claimed the government official merely "parroted" the allegations instead of recording independent satisfaction, pointing out that the Supreme Court has previously criticized the practice of merely reciting the words of a section without looking at the underlying material.
Also read: NEET 2026 Re-Exam Shocker: Telegram Restricted Across India Till June 22
Furthermore, Telegram's legal team argued that the government's response was grossly disproportionate. They argued that instead of imposing a blanket ban on the entire platform—which negatively affects lakhs of innocent students and educators who rely on the app to prepare for competitive examinations—the government should have specifically sought the removal of the objectionable posts. Telegram also raised a procedural grievance, asserting that it was entirely denied a hearing as mandated under Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules, despite the fact that the company had been actively engaging with authorized government agencies over the preceding weeks. To demonstrate its compliance and due diligence as an intermediary, the platform highlighted that it had proactively taken down more than 900 links involving unlawful NEET-related content and had deployed artificial intelligence and machine learning tools to address unlawful information on its network. During the hearing, Telegram even attempted to argue that the leaked paper circulating on its platform was not real and was merely a spread of misinformation. However, Justice Karia remained highly skeptical of this specific defense, orally remarking, "How do you know that? Problem is there is a paper".
The central government mounted a fierce and highly technical defense, led by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta and Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani. The government's primary argument centered on the sheer technical impossibility of conducting standard law enforcement on the messaging app. The Attorney General took a hardline stance, stating that a platform created for financial gain that fails to discharge its duties cannot legally seek the protection of proportionality. He went so far as to label Telegram a "Frankenstein" due to its highly unique and problematic architectural design, asking the court where the country would go if it could not take preventive action against such threats.
Also Read: Savarkar Defamation Case: Overview of the Savarkar Defamation Case
The Solicitor General provided the court with a detailed breakdown of this architecture, pointing specifically to Telegram's dedicated "bot infrastructure". These automated accounts, he explained, are capable of disseminating massive amounts of content, redirecting users to specific channels, and sending bulk communications at scale, all without any continuous human intervention. The critical issue for law enforcement agencies is the platform's "mirroring" capability. The SG explained that once authorities successfully block a specific bot, the system automatically redirects users to another bot without needing any human input. Because of this automated mirroring, targeting individual bots or channels only provides a temporary fix, allowing the unlawful activity to instantly reappear and continue operating in substantially the same manner.
Adding to these severe law enforcement hurdles are Telegram's built-in "anonymity enhancing" features. The platform allows its users to conceal their phone numbers, utilize virtual phone numbers, and operate through VPN services. The SG submitted that these specific features significantly impede the ability of investigators to identify co-conspirators, trace communication chains, and establish attribution during an active probe. Furthermore, the SG highlighted that the platform permits users to edit the date and time of their posts. The SG pointed out that bad actors could easily exploit this feature by editing a post today to falsely claim that the exam paper was already available on June 19, thereby manufacturing panic.
The courtroom debate reached its absolute peak over the constitutional doctrine of proportionality. Justice Karia repeatedly challenged the government, asking whether it could legally justify suspending the rights of 150 million people simply to protect the interests of a single group of citizens appearing for an exam. He asked the SG directly if exercising this blocking right under these specific facts and circumstances was proportional and whether the state had properly examined the larger public good. In response, the Solicitor General relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, arguing that blocking access for a strictly temporary period is not legally prohibited.
Also Read: You All Are Parasites - CJI Surya Kant Slams Cyber Criminals
The SG stressed that the restriction was strictly "event linked" and scheduled to end automatically on Monday, June 22. He argued that this specific timeframe clearly demonstrates an application of mind by the government, proving the ban was not an arbitrary, open-ended action. The Centre maintained that the committee responsible for the decision was completely satisfied that channel-specific blocking measures were insufficient against Telegram's mirroring architecture. Consequently, the government argued that the blanket ban was actually the "least restrictive" measure available, particularly after Telegram allegedly admitted that they could not do anything beyond the steps they were already considering. The SG framed the potential harm as a massive and immediate public order threat. With 22 lakh students scheduled to appear for the re-examination, any perceived compromise of the test could lead to severe unrest, the incitement of offenses, and the very real possibility of students taking to the streets in protest. Under these extreme circumstances, the Centre argued, the sheer scale of the potential harm to public order overrides standard arguments regarding proportionality.
While Justice Karia heavily scrutinized the government's sweeping blanket ban, he applied equally rigorous pressure on Telegram regarding its responsibilities as an online intermediary. He questioned the platform on its obligations under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The judge reminded Telegram's legal counsel that Section 79 imposes an independent legal obligation for due diligence on intermediaries, a responsibility that has nothing to do with the government's independent blocking powers under Section 69A.
The judge raised a highly practical hypothetical scenario that struck at the core of the state's concerns: once a leaked paper goes viral on the platform, how can the company stop the spread on a real-time basis? Justice Karia noted that by the time a formal complaint is received by the platform and subsequent action is taken, the damage to the examination's integrity is already done. He directly pressed the platform's counsel, asking exactly what kind of real-time surveillance mechanisms exist on their network. He ultimately questioned Telegram on whether its underlying architecture is designed in a way that would even allow for less restrictive measures to meet the stringent security requirements of a national examination. The final decision of the High Court on this complex intersection of technology, law enforcement, and civil rights remains reserved.
For better understanding Watch the Video:FAQs
Why did the Government of India temporarily restrict Telegram before the NEET 2026 re-examination?
The Central Government imposed a temporary restriction on Telegram after receiving recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Ministry of Education. The objective was to prevent the circulation of leaked question papers and protect the integrity of the NEET 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21, 2026.
Why did Telegram challenge the ban in the Delhi High Court?
Telegram argued that the restriction was disproportionate and unfair because it affected more than 150 million users across India. The company claimed that the government should have targeted specific channels or posts involved in sharing leaked content rather than blocking the entire platform.
What was Telegram's main legal argument against the ban?
Telegram contended that the government improperly invoked emergency blocking powers under the Information Technology Rules. According to the company, authorities failed to independently examine the evidence before issuing the blocking order and did not provide Telegram an opportunity to be heard.
What was the Centre's justification for blocking Telegram?
The Centre argued that Telegram's unique technical architecture, including anonymous accounts, bots, and automatic channel mirroring, makes traditional enforcement measures ineffective. The government maintained that a temporary platform-wide restriction was necessary to prevent large-scale dissemination of leaked examination material.
What concerns did the government raise about Telegram's anonymity features?
According to the Centre, Telegram's anonymity tools, hidden phone numbers, virtual numbers, and VPN usage create significant challenges for investigators attempting to identify individuals involved in examination paper leaks and other unlawful activities.
What questions did Justice Tejas Karia raise during the hearing?
Justice Tejas Karia questioned both parties extensively. He asked the government whether restricting access for 150 million users was a proportionate response to protect exam integrity. At the same time, he questioned Telegram's ability to stop leaked content from spreading in real time once it appears on the platform.
0 Comments