Delhi HC issues notice on Telegram's plea against temporary ban ahead of NEET-UG re-exam, seeks Centre's reply

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by instant messaging platform Telegram challenging the Central government's decision to temporarily block its operations in India till June 22 in connection with the upcoming NEET-UG re-examination.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by instant messaging platform Telegram challenging the Central government's decision to temporarily block its operations in India till June 22 in connection with the upcoming NEET-UG re-examination. A vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia granted liberty to the Centre and other respondents to file their replies along with all supporting documents and listed the matter for further hearing at 2:30 PM on June 18.

The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing by Advocate Madhav Khosla on behalf of Telegram. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre through video conferencing along with Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit. At the outset, Mehta submitted that the blocking order had been issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and that a post-decisional hearing had already been conducted. He informed the Court that Telegram's representatives had participated in the proceedings before the nodal agency, and a fresh order was expected to be passed.

Seeking time to place material on record, Mehta said the government had substantial evidence regarding misuse of the platform. "This has not happened overnight. We have been dealing with them since May. Complaints have been received since May," he submitted. According to the Centre, despite repeated interventions, certain channels allegedly involved in examination-related activities continued to resurface after being blocked. Mehta argued that there was extensive material demonstrating misuse of the platform and stated that the government would justify the invocation of emergency powers through facts and figures. He repeatedly told the Court that the material available with the government was "shocking".

The Court queried the government regarding the scope of misuse and asked, "What percentage of a platform can be misused by persons with bad intentions?" Appearing for Telegram, senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta challenged the legality of the blocking order, arguing that the action was arbitrary, disproportionate and contrary to the statutory framework.

The senior counsel submitted that Rule 9 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by the Public) Rules contemplates blocking of specific information and not an entire platform. He argued that the government had imposed a blanket ban affecting approximately 150 million users in India. "Students obtain study material through Telegram. Educators use it. Businesses use it. You have blocked everything," Dhruv Mehta argued.

He further contended that the impugned order suffered from complete non-application of mind and failed to acknowledge actions already taken by Telegram in response to government requests. According to Telegram, since June 1 several meetings had been held with government authorities, and whenever specific channels were identified, the platform acted upon requests for blocking them. Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta further argued that although the order relied upon complaints made by the National Testing Agency (NTA), it failed to consider the material available before the authorities, including communications exchanged between the government and the platform and the action already taken by Telegram. "There is not a whisper in the order about these actions," he submitted.

He also argued that the order was bereft of reasons and amounted to an abdication of statutory powers by the authorities. Referring to the immediate implementation of the ban, counsel pointed out that the blocking direction came into effect within an hour, causing widespread disruption. Seeking interim relief, Telegram urged the Court to restrain the government from taking further coercive steps pending adjudication of the petition.

The Court observed that the legality of the order would have to be examined after considering the government's response and the material sought to be placed on record. When the Court remarked that any interim protection could effectively amount to staying the entire order, Mehta opposed the request and argued that such a direction would virtually result in allowing the writ petition at the interim stage itself.

Before concluding the hearing, the Court noted the Solicitor General's submission that "nothing will happen overnight" and proceeded to issue notice to the respondents. Telegram has challenged the Centre's temporary blocking order issued ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21. The government has defended the action on the grounds that the platform was allegedly being used by organised groups involved in circulating examination-related material and scams. Telegram, however, maintains that it has cooperated with authorities and acted against channels flagged by the government, while contending that a complete shutdown of the platform is unlawful and disproportionate. (ANI)