The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Central government's response to a petition filed by messaging platform Telegram challenging the temporary ban imposed on its operations in India ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination. The Court, however, declined to grant any immediate interim relief and allowed the government time to place its stand on record.
The matter was heard by Justice Tejas Karia, who issued notice on Telegram's plea and listed the case for further hearing.
Background of the Case
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had directed internet service providers to block access to Telegram in India until June 22 under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The move came amid concerns that Telegram channels were being used to circulate leaked or fake NEET-UG examination material ahead of the re-test scheduled for June 21.
The government also ordered the platform to disable its message-editing feature for previously posted messages until June 30.
Challenging the action, Telegram approached the High Court, arguing that the government had imposed a blanket ban on the entire platform despite its cooperation with authorities and efforts to remove objectionable content.
Appearing for Telegram, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta contended that the government's order reflected a “complete non-application of mind” and ignored extensive correspondence between the platform and authorities.
According to Telegram, the company had acted promptly whenever specific channels or links were identified. The platform claimed it removed flagged content within an hour of receiving information from authorities and had taken down more than 900 links related to unlawful NEET-related content.
Mehta argued that the law permits blocking specific information rather than an entire platform.
“This is an overbroad order. Just because some things are bad, you cannot block the entire platform,” he submitted, adding that millions of students, educators and businesses rely on Telegram.
The company further alleged that the impugned order lacked reasons and failed to consider the moderation measures already implemented by Telegram.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, opposed the plea and sought time to file a detailed reply.
He told the Court that authorities had been engaging with Telegram since May and had repeatedly alerted the platform about misuse of its services.
“The platform was repeatedly called and told that these are issues and you correct your system. But they failed to do it,” the Solicitor General submitted.
Referring to material available with the government, Mehta stated that Telegram channels were allegedly being used to offer examination-related content in exchange for money. He also indicated that the government possessed substantial material regarding the alleged misuse of the platform.
When Telegram questioned the urgency behind invoking emergency powers, the Solicitor General responded that the issue had not arisen overnight and had been under consideration for several weeks.
During the hearing, Justice Karia questioned the extent of unlawful activity on the platform and observed that any digital platform could potentially be misused by individuals.
The Court recorded the government's request to place its reply on record and noted that a post-decisional hearing under the law had already taken place.
“Issue notice. Notice is accepted. Respondents are at liberty to file their reply along with all the documents,” the Court ordered.
The Delhi High Court issued notice on Telegram's petition and granted the Central government time to file its response. The Court did not stay the temporary blocking order and declined to grant interim relief at this stage.
The matter has been listed for further hearing.
