The Delhi High Court on Thursday (18 June) reserved its judgment on Telegram's challenge to the Centre's temporary restriction of the messaging platform ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination. The hearing saw extensive arguments on whether the government's action under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act was proportionate and legally justified.
Justice Tejas Karia heard submissions from both sides before reserving orders. The Court permitted parties to file any additional written submissions by 7 PM on June 18.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the Centre temporarily restricted access to Telegram in India until June 22 and directed the platform to disable its message-editing feature until June 30. The measures were introduced ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21.
According to the government, the restrictions were imposed following recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA), which expressed concerns that organised cheating networks were allegedly using Telegram to circulate leaked or fabricated examination material.
Telegram challenged the decision, arguing that the restrictions amounted to a blanket shutdown affecting more than 150 million users in India and that less restrictive alternatives were available.
Telegram's Arguments Before the Court
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Telegram, argued that the government's order suffered from serious legal defects and failed the constitutional test of proportionality.
He submitted that there was no emergency requiring such extensive restrictions and that authorities could have blocked specific channels or content instead of limiting access to the entire platform.
Telegram also maintained that it had already taken action against unlawful NEET-related content and had removed hundreds of problematic links and channels.
Court Examines Proportionality of Restrictions
Throughout the hearing, Justice Karia repeatedly focused on whether the government's exercise of power under Section 69A was justified in the circumstances.
"The question is whether the conditions under Section 69A have been met in letter and spirit," the Court observed.
The Bench also questioned whether the rights of millions of users could be curtailed because of alleged misuse by a smaller group. "Many students have been affected. But the issue is this: to curb one instance, can you ban the whole app?" Justice Karia remarked.
The Court further asked whether restrictions imposed on a large number of users could be justified solely to protect another group of citizens.
Centre Defends Temporary Ban
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R. Venkataramani defended the government's action, describing it as a temporary and event-specific measure intended to protect the integrity of an examination involving nearly 22 lakh candidates.
The Centre relied on reports prepared by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), arguing that Telegram's technical architecture, including bot networks, anonymous usernames, large-scale file sharing and automatic migration to mirror channels, created significant enforcement challenges.
The government also highlighted concerns regarding Telegram's message-editing feature. According to the Centre, edited messages could be used to create false claims that examination papers had been leaked before the test, potentially triggering public unrest.
The Attorney General told the Court that authorities had carefully examined the situation before issuing the blocking order and that preventive action was necessary to address potential law-and-order concerns.
Decision
After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, Justice Tejas Karia reserved judgment in Telegram FZ LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court directed that any additional submissions may be placed on record by 7 PM on June 18, 2026.
