The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the government’s decision to block the instant messaging platform Telegram for six days ahead of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG) re-exam scheduled for Sunday. The court observed that the blocking order was supported by relevant material and did not suffer from “non-application of mind,” as argued by Telegram.
The restriction was imposed following concerns related to alleged exam paper leaks after NEET-UG was rescheduled. The exam, originally held on May 12, saw participation from around 2.27 million students across 551 cities before being cancelled amid irregularity allegations. Reports suggested that question papers had been accessed on certain devices before the exam date.
Telegram challenged the government’s June 16 blocking order, calling it unconstitutional, arbitrary, and disproportionate, arguing that it impacts millions of users and businesses on the platform.
The government defended the move under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, stating that emergency action was necessary to prevent circulation of unlawful content and maintain public order. It further alleged that certain Telegram channels were being used to distribute exam-related material and that the platform had not taken sufficient action against them.
According to government submissions, Telegram’s features—such as bots, anonymity tools, and ease of creating channels—make it vulnerable to misuse for spreading illegal content at scale. It also stated that several bots linked to NEET-related material were removed during enforcement action.
The court noted the sensitivity of the situation, particularly the impact on students, while also acknowledging concerns over the extent of restrictions placed on entire platforms due to isolated incidents.
Telegram, represented by senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, argued that the blocking order was excessive and arbitrary, claiming it affects more than 150 million users and restricts free expression. It also pointed out that other similar platforms continue to operate without such restrictions.
The government, however, maintained that delaying action could have led to public unrest and further dissemination of sensitive material, justifying the temporary blocking as a preventive measure.
The case highlights ongoing legal and policy debates around intermediary liability, digital platform regulation, and balancing cybersecurity with freedom of expression.
Sources: Hindustan Times
