Delhi HC upholds Telegram ban, says platform architecture makes it prone to rapid spread of illegal content

Dismissing a petition filed by Telegram FZ LLC, Justice Tejas Karia held that Telegram's technical features, including large public channels, cloud-based storage, extensive bot ecosystems, username-based operations, mirror channels and message-editing capabilities, made it particularly susceptible to misuse for spreading misinformation and facilitating fraud.

The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Centre's decision to temporarily block Telegram ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination, observing that the platform's architecture enables rapid amplification of unlawful content and that narrower measures had failed to curb misuse linked to examination fraud. Dismissing a petition filed by Telegram FZ LLC, Justice Tejas Karia held that Telegram's technical features, including large public channels, cloud-based storage, extensive bot ecosystems, username-based operations, mirror channels and message-editing capabilities, made it particularly susceptible to misuse for spreading misinformation and facilitating fraud.

The Court observed that even when specific channels are removed, Telegram's architecture allows rapid creation of mirror channels and migration of subscribers, enabling unlawful activities to resume almost immediately. It further noted that the platform's message-editing feature could be misused to create a false impression that examination papers were leaked before an exam, thereby misleading students and the public. Holding that targeted takedowns had proved ineffective, the Court said the government had adequately demonstrated that "entity-specific interventions" such as removing channels, bots and accounts repeatedly failed because offending entities continued to reappear through backup channels and audience migration mechanisms.

The Court rejected Telegram's argument that the government lacked power under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block an entire platform. It held that the expression "information" under the Act is broad enough to include software, computer programmes and applications, thereby empowering the Centre to block access to an entire platform where circumstances warrant such action. Justice Karia further ruled that the emergency blocking order did not suffer from non-application of mind and was supported by sufficient reasons. The Court observed that given the emergency nature of the situation and concerns relating to public order and examination integrity, the reasons recorded by the government were adequate and complied with the statutory framework under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules.

The Court also accepted the Centre's submission that the interests of nearly 22 lakh NEET candidates and the need to preserve the integrity of the re-examination justified urgent intervention. It noted that reports from the National Testing Agency (NTA), Ministry of Home Affairs and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre indicated continuing misuse of Telegram despite repeated engagement and takedown efforts. Applying the proportionality principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, the High Court held that the temporary block on Telegram till June 22 and the disabling of the message-editing feature till June 30 were narrowly tailored, time-bound measures linked specifically to the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21.

"The temporary blocking of Telegram under the Orders is operative only until 22.06.2026, while the disabling of the message-editing feature is confined to the period until 30.06.2026. The limited temporal scope of these measures demonstrates that they are narrowly tailored and confined to the period strictly necessary for securing the stated objective," the Court observed. Concluding that the government's action satisfied all requirements of proportionality, the Court held that the temporary blocking order constituted the "least restrictive measure" available to prevent examination fraud, protect public order and preserve confidence in the examination process. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. (ANI)