Delhi HC Upholds Temporary Telegram Curbs Ahead of NEET Re-Test, Says Action Was Proportionate
In a significant win for the Centre, the Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the government’s decision to temporarily restrict access to messaging platform Telegram ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination, ruling that the measures adopted were proportionate and aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the examination process.
Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Telegram’s challenge to the blocking order issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, observing that the government had chosen the least restrictive option available under the circumstances.
“The government’s measures are the least restrictive. It cannot be held that the order is disproportionate,” the court said while delivering its verdict.
Why Was Telegram Restricted?
The Centre ordered a temporary suspension of Telegram services in India until June 22 after intelligence inputs suggested that organised cheating networks allegedly linked to the NEET-UG paper leak controversy were using the platform to circulate examination-related material.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), acting on recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA), also directed Telegram to disable its message-editing feature for previously posted messages until June 30.
The move came after the original NEET-UG examination conducted on May 3 was cancelled following allegations of paper leaks and irregularities. The case is currently being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Telegram Challenged the Order
Telegram argued before the High Court that it had been unfairly singled out while other social media and messaging platforms continued to operate without similar restrictions. The company contended that the government’s action violated Article 14 of the Constitution and failed the test of proportionality.
According to Telegram, it had been cooperating with authorities for weeks and had acted swiftly against unlawful content linked to the examination controversy.
The platform told the court that it removed flagged content within an hour of receiving specific URLs from authorities on June 9 and had taken down more than 900 links connected to illegal NEET-related material.
Telegram further submitted that it had deployed artificial intelligence tools, machine-learning systems and human moderation teams to identify and remove policy-violating content.
Sharp Exchanges in Court
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Telegram, questioned the legal basis of the government’s order and argued that authorities had mechanically invoked Section 69A.
Referring to the language used in the blocking order, Mehta asked whether concerns surrounding an examination could genuinely be linked to the “sovereignty and integrity of India,” suggesting there had been insufficient application of mind while exercising such powers.
He maintained that Telegram had remained in constant communication with government agencies and had proactively complied with requests to remove problematic content.
Centre Defends Action as Necessary
Defending the decision, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the government was compelled to act to prevent further leaks and preserve the credibility of a high-stakes national examination. He contended that Telegram’s platform architecture limited effective intervention once content began spreading and justified preventive action given the potential consequences.
Attorney General R Venkataramani strongly backed the government’s stand, arguing that the proportionality challenge itself was misplaced. According to him, the blocking order was self-contained and legally justified, adding that governments must retain the ability to take preventive measures when public interest is at stake.
Court Backs Government’s Approach
After hearing extensive arguments from both sides and reserving its verdict on June 18, the High Court ultimately sided with the Centre.
The ruling reinforces the government’s powers under Section 69A to impose temporary restrictions on digital platforms in exceptional circumstances, particularly where authorities believe such action is necessary to prevent misuse and protect larger public interests.
For Telegram, the verdict marks a legal setback in its challenge against one of the most sweeping platform-specific restrictions imposed in connection with the NEET-UG controversy.
Comments are closed.