On June 21, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the order to temporarily block the social media messaging app Telegram in the context of the NEET re-examination.
On Friday, the Delhi High Court dismissed Telegram’s petition challenging the Central Government’s decision to block the messaging platform until June 22—a move aimed at preventing paper leaks ahead of the NEET re-examination scheduled for June 21.
A bench led by Justice Tejas Karia observed that the government had adhered to the law. The Court noted that the government had complied with Section 69A of the IT Act and rejected Telegram’s argument that no reasons were provided for the temporary ban; the High Court upheld the validity of the Central Government’s order. The Court had reserved its verdict on June 18.
During the hearing, the Central Government described Telegram as the “new dark web,” used to facilitate illegal activities and unlawful acts. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Government, stated that the platform enables criminals to carry out illicit operations and makes it extremely difficult for investigative agencies to apprehend the perpetrators.
Order to block Telegram until June 22
The Central Government’s affidavit stated that Telegram had been extensively used in connection with the NEET examination, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the exam. It was noted that the Ministry of Electronics and IT had ordered a ban on the Telegram app until June 22 under Section 69A of the IT Act.
Order to disable the ‘edit’ feature until June 30
A separate order directed Telegram to disable its ‘edit’ feature until June 30. The Central Government maintained that this order was necessary to ensure transparency during the NEET re-examination on June 21.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani also appeared on behalf of the Central Government during the hearing.
The Attorney General stated that the Centre’s order was complete in itself. They argued that in a country like ours, without preventive measures, we would face dire consequences; the Attorney General contended that a platform driven by profit motives cannot invoke the principle of proportionality. He noted that the Central Government has not targeted other platforms—which may be more powerful—because they possess their own filtration systems.
Telegram argued that while Rule 9 of the IT Rules allows for action in emergency situations, the Central Government invoked Section 69A, which is not legally tenable. The Central Government’s order cites a complaint lodged by the National Testing Agency (NTA).
Telegram maintained that complaints are reviewed by the concerned officials, who then submit their recommendations; however, the officials in question have stated that they did not recommend blocking the channel. The Central Government’s order makes no mention of the communication between the concerned officials and the ministry, nor does it reference the actions taken by Telegram.
