Delhi HC Reserves Verdict On Telegram's Plea Against Temporary Ban Over NEET-UG 2026 Re-Exam

Justice Tejas Karia reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta for Telegram and Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma for the Centre.

"Arguments heard. Any party wishing to place additional submissions on record may do so by 7 PM today," the Court said.

Telegram challenged the Centre's order restricting access to the platform until June 22 and disabling its message-editing feature till June 30, contending that the action was disproportionate and legally unsustainable.

Opening his submissions, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the final order merely confirmed the interim direction and suffered from "legal infirmity." He submitted that there was no emergency situation warranting such drastic action and that authorities could have blocked specific content instead of restricting the entire application.

The Court, however, observed that the post-decisional hearing granted to Telegram was an independent statutory requirement and noted that confirmation or reversal of the interim direction would depend on the facts of each case.

Summarising Telegram's case, the Court noted that the platform was essentially arguing that there was no emergency, that targeted blocking measures were available, that there was a lack of application of mind by the competent authority, and that the order failed the proportionality test.

The Court, however, observed that there appeared to have been "a series of meetings" before the blocking order was issued and noted that Telegram had not satisfactorily addressed the steps taken by authorities to deal with the alleged exigencies.

The Bench repeatedly emphasised that the real issue was whether the Centre's power under Section 69A had been exercised properly."The question is whether the conditions under Section 69A have been met in letter and spirit. The real concern appears to be whether the material justifies such an order. You are essentially challenging the sweeping direction banning the entire app," Justice Karia observed.

Highlighting the wider impact of the order, the Court remarked: "We are all alive to the situation. Many students have been affected. But the issue is this: to curb one instance, can you ban the whole app? There is a power, and that power can be exercised. The question is, to what extent can it be exercised?"

The Centre defended its action by placing on record an affidavit stating that multiple complaints had been received regarding Telegram's alleged misuse for circulating leaked NEET examination material and facilitating fraudulent activities connected with the examination.

According to the affidavit, authorities initially adopted the least restrictive approach and met Telegram representatives on June 3, raising concerns about the platform's inability to proactively identify and curb channels disseminating leaked examination papers.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Telegram's architecture was fundamentally different from other intermediaries and had created an ecosystem that enabled cheating networks to evade enforcement measures.

Reading from reports prepared by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), he submitted: "Telegram offers a bot infrastructure capable of disseminating information in bulk. This feature is unique because it allows sophisticated networks to operate with minimal human oversight."

The SG further argued that Telegram's features, including anonymous usernames, large-volume file sharing and automatic migration to mirror channels, significantly impeded law enforcement investigations. "Once a bot is blocked, it is automatically redirected to another bot. No human intervention is required," he said.

Referring to the platform's message-editing feature, the SG argued that it could be used to fabricate claims of question paper leaks after examinations had concluded. "But the date and time of the posting can be modified or can be edited and it can be shown as 18th, and people will be on the streets that the paper was leaked on 19th of June. That had happened in 2024," he submitted.

The Court, however, continued to probe the proportionality of the government's action. "The question here is can you block someone else's right to protect somebody else?" Justice Karia asked.

The Centre maintained that the restrictions were temporary, event-specific and aimed at protecting the integrity of an examination involving approximately 22 lakh candidates.

On June 17, the Court had issued notice to the Centre on a plea filed by messaging platform Telegram challenging the government's decision to temporarily restrict access to the app ahead of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21.

The Centre's action followed directions issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the recommendations of the National Testing Agency (NTA).

According to the NTA, access to Telegram has been temporarily restricted in India until June 22, covering the June 21 NEET-UG 2026 re-examination and its immediate aftermath. In a separate direction, Telegram has also been required to disable its message-editing feature in India until June 30, 2026. The NTA stated that the message-editing feature had been exploited to create fabricated "after-the-event" evidence of question paper leaks relating to national examinations. The examination agency said both measures were adopted "in the interest of public order" and in response to the organised use of the platform by cheating rackets seeking to defraud candidates appearing for the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination.

Case Title: Telegram FZ LLV & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Hearing Date: June 18, 2026