Can You Block 150 Million Users for One Exam?": Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict on Centre's Temporary Telegram Ban
reuters
NEW DELHI — In a high-stakes legal battle weighing digital rights against the integrity of national examinations, the Delhi High Court on Thursday (June 18) reserved its verdict on a plea filed by Telegram. The messaging giant is challenging the Central Government's controversial decision to temporarily block access to the platform across India until June 22, a measure explicitly aimed at preventing paper leaks ahead of the highly sensitive NEET 2026 UG Re-Examination scheduled for June 21.
The proceedings, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, witnessed intense legal sparring over the principle of proportionality, algorithmic accountability, and the state's power to initiate blanket digital blackouts.
The Proportionality Debate: 150 Million vs. 22 Lakh
At the heart of the judicial scrutiny was the sheer scale of the Centre's blocking order. Justice Karia orally questioned the constitutional proportionality of shutting down an entire communication network used by millions for the sake of an examination impacting a fraction of the population.
"Can we stop the rights of 150 million people just because one set of citizens are appearing in exams?" the Judge asked the Centre's counsel. "Can you block someone else's right to protect somebody else? Is your exercise of right in facts and circumstances proportional?"
Appearing for Telegram, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the Centre's emergency invocation under Rule 9 of the IT Rules was executed without an independent application of mind. He contended that the government should have sought the targeted removal of objectionable posts rather than imposing a "disproportionate" and blanket shutdown, further pointing out that the platform was denied a hearing as mandated under Rule 8.
A Digital 'Frankenstein': The Centre's Defense
Defending the ban, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta and Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani painted a grim picture of Telegram's unique architectural design, arguing that it inherently facilitates untraceable criminal activity.
The SG highlighted the platform's Bot infrastructure, which allows for the automated, bulk dissemination of leaked materials without human oversight. He explained that even when enforcement agencies block a specific bot, the system automatically redirects to mirror channels, rendering conventional law enforcement measures temporary and ineffective. Furthermore, features like concealed phone numbers and date-and-time editing severely impede investigations.
"They can post something today with editing and say that it [the paper] was already available on June 19. That is where public order comes," SG Mehta submitted, warning that a leak affecting 22 lakh NEET aspirants could lead to severe public unrest and youth protests on the streets.
Taking a harder stance, AG Venkataramani remarked, "This platform, because of its unique architecture, I would say is a Frankenstein. If our country can't take preventive action, where will we go? A platform created for money raises a proportionality argument?"
Telegram's Compliance and CEO Pavel Durov's Response
During the hearing, the Court also pressed Telegram on its independent obligations under Section 79 of the IT Act regarding real-time surveillance and due diligence. Telegram responded that it had already taken proactive measures, utilizing AI and machine learning tools to take down over 900 links containing unlawful NEET-related content.
The temporary ban has drawn sharp international criticism from Telegram's leadership. Taking to the social media platform X, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov condemned the move, arguing that it punishes ordinary citizens rather than the actual perpetrators.
"The ban hasn't stopped anything. The leaks just moved to other apps," Durov posted. "Over the past few weeks, we removed hundreds of channels sharing leaked exam materials and related scams in India. We're also making the 'edited' label more visible to prevent backdating scams. Telegram is a force for good. Banning it — even temporarily — is a mistake."
Conversely, the National Testing Agency (NTA) issued a press release welcoming the Centre's stringent directions. As the nation awaits the High Court's impending verdict, the ruling is poised to set a critical legal precedent regarding the limits of state censorship in the digital age during times of administrative crisis.
Our Final Thoughts
The Delhi High Court proceedings highlight a massive, unresolved friction point in modern Indian governance: the blunt instrument of digital bans versus targeted law enforcement. The Attorney General referring to Telegram as a "Frankenstein" underscores the government's genuine frustration with end-to-end encrypted, bot-driven networks that easily outpace traditional policing. However, Justice Karia’s probing question remains the most vital: does a localized administrative threat justify suspending the digital rights of 150 million citizens? If the court upholds this temporary ban, it may inadvertently establish a dangerous precedent where blanket internet and app shutdowns become the default administrative remedy for any potential law-and-order challenge.