The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Centre’s decision to impose a temporary nationwide suspension of Telegram services ahead of the NEET (UG) 2026 re-examination. Upholding the government’s move, Justice Tejas Karia observed that the emergency blocking orders were issued in accordance with the procedure laid down under law and were warranted given the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the crucial medical entrance test. The court also held that the restrictions met the requirement of proportionality, dismissing Telegram’s challenge to the action.
“After considering all arguments, we found that given the emergency nature of impugned orders, respondents (authorities) strictly followed the procedure,” the Delhi High Court said while rejecting the petition.
“We have also held that the test of proportionality is satisfied as requirements, namely legitimate objective, nexus of action with the measure adopted, necessity of the measure are met and least restrictive measures have been adopted,” Justice Karia added.
What Telegram said
Telegram had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the Centre’s decision to temporarily suspend its services across India till June 22 and disable its message-editing feature till June 30. The restrictions were imposed pursuant to directions issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, following recommendations made by the National Testing Agency (NTA) after the NEET paper leak controversy.
Telegram challenged the order, arguing that the government has singled it out while other social media intermediaries continue to operate without restriction, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Telegram, submitted that the messaging app had acted on requests received from authorities and had taken down around 1,300 URLs linked to objectionable content. He also posed a question to the Centre about the rights of 150 million users of Telegram in India.
The company stated that it held multiple meetings with government agencies from May onwards and submitted detailed responses outlining both proactive and reactive moderation measures.
What Centre argued
The Union government had defended the move, contending that Telegram’s architecture and repeated misuse for examination-related frauds left authorities with “no other option” but to invoke emergency blocking powers. The Centre said the decision was taken only after “exhausting alternatives”, including repeated requests for targeted takedowns of unlawful content, which were found inadequate.
According to the government, the NTA had identified several Telegram channels allegedly involved in selling purported NEET question papers and examination-related scams. The Centre claimed that the channels, groups and bots under scrutiny had a combined reach of nearly 1.46 lakh accounts.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also argued that Telegram had evolved into a key platform for a wide range of illegal activities. The SG said that Telegram’s architecture allows an entire audience of over one lakh users to be shifted from one channel to another almost instantly through mirror channels and bots.
The Union government also relied on reports of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) and argued that Telegram’s anonymity features, large subscriber channels, automated bots, forwarding mechanisms and cloud-based architecture posed significant challenges for law enforcement agencies.
“That is their architecture. It is their business choice,” he submitted.
The Centre had maintained that content-specific takedowns were ineffective because channels and bots could be recreated within minutes, making temporary platform-wide restrictions necessary to prevent further misuse ahead of the re-examination.
What the Delhi HC observed
During the hearing, the court observed that it was fully conscious of the seriousness of the situation and the impact the alleged NEET paper leak had on thousands of students. The Bench said the central issue was not whether the government possessed the power to act but whether that power could extend to blocking an entire platform.
“Whether the rights of an entire class of users could be curtailed to protect another section of citizens,” Justice Tejas Karia said.
The judge said Telegram’s plea claiming non-supply of reasons cannot be held to be true. He said the Centre’s orders are “well-founded and supported by reasons,” and that the orders do not suffer from non-application of mind.
“Respondent 1 (Centre) was empowered under Section 69A to direct the blocking of access to Telegram. The test of proportionality is satisfied. The government’s measures are the least restrictive. It cannot be held that the order is disproportionate,” Justice Karia said.
Section 69A of the Indian Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, empowers the Centre to block public access to any online information, websites, or applications to protect national security, public order, and sovereignty.