Delhi High Court Asks If Blanket Telegram Ban Is Proportionate To Prevent NEET Paper Leak, Reserves Verdict

The Delhi High Court on Thursday (June 18) reserved its verdict in a plea filed by Telegram challenging Central Government's decision to temporarily restrict access to the messaging platform in India till June 22, to prevent paper-leak ahead of NEET 2026 Re-Examination which is scheduled on June 21.

During the hearing, Justice Tejas Karia orally asked the Centre if rights of 150 million users could be blocked just because one set of citizens (NEET aspirants) are appearing in an exam.

The judge also orally asked Telegram, if it had taken adequate steps like real-time monitoring, to prevent the alleged paper leak. "Whether your architecture is such that less restrictive measures will meet the requirement?" the Judge asked the platform.

Read live updates from the hearing here.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appearing for Telegram argued that satisfaction of the Secretary was very important to invoke the emergency provision (Rule 9 of the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules) against the platform. However, it is his claim that there was no application of mind on material, no independent satisfaction was recorded and the designated officer merely 'parroted' the allegations.

"You cant recite words of the section. SC has criticised this approach..you have to look at the material and then say the satisfaction arrived at is on the basis of the material," he submitted.

He further submitted that at best, the Centre could seek removal of objectionable posts and not impose a 'disproportionate', blanket ban on the platform.

At this juncture, the Court asked the counsel whether Telegram was able to satisfy the government with regards to the steps it had taken to meet the situation.

"You have to perform due diligence under Section 79 IT Act as you are an intermediary. Section 79 is an independent obligation, nothing to do with 69A (blocking power) IT Act...suppose once paper is leaked, and it can become viral how can you in real time basis? Once complaint is received…by the time action is taken damage is done. What real time surveillance is there on your platform?" the Judge asked Telegram.

Though Telegram submitted that the leaked paper was not real and there was spread of misinformation about paper leak, unconvinced, the Court orally remarked, "How do you know that? Problem is there is a paper."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre on the other hand argued that architectural design of Telegram app is different, making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to conduct probe.

"Telegram can offer bot infrastructure which can disseminate information in bulk. This feature is unique as it permits creation of sophisticated networks with minimal human oversight," SG said.

An affidavit filed by the Centre in this regard states,

"Telegram possesses certain technical and architectural features that distinguish it from other intermediaries and materially affect the ability of law enforcement agencies to prevent, detect and investigate unlawful activities on the platform...Telegram provides a dedicated Bot infrastructure, enabling the creation and deployment of automated accounts capable of functioning without continuous human intervention. These bots can automatically disseminate content, redirect users to channels, send bulk communications, collect information, and perform other actions at scale."

Solicitor General further submitted that once a Bot is blocked, it can mirror channel, i.e. it is automatically redirected to another Bot. "No human intervention needed...Consequently, enforcement measures directed against individual bots frequently have only temporary effect, thereby allowing the unlawful activity to re-emerge and continue operating in substantially the same manner."

The SG further referred to "anonymity enhancing" features of Telegram such as concealed phone numbers, virtual phone numbers, VPN services, etc. and submitted, "This feature significantly impedes the ability of law enforcement agencies to identify co-conspirators, trace communication chains, and establish attribution during the course of investigation."

On proportionality of Centre's action, the SG said, the Committee was satisfied that the channel specific measures (blocking) were not sufficient. He added that the restriction is temporary, event linked. "As the examination was on June 21. Temporary event based action is only till Monday (June 22). This shows application of mind. The potential harm that is proposed to be prevented, is the proportionality of action."

The Court however orally asked the SG whether rights of other users could be blocked just because on set of citizens (NEET aspirants) are appearing in an exam.

"Can we stop rights of 150 million people just because one set of citizens are appearing in exams? Can you block someone else's right to protect somebody else? Is your exercise of right in facts and circumstances proportional?" Justice Karia asked.

Solicitor General relied on Anuradha Bhasin judgment to submit that for a temporary period, blocking is not prohibited. "When internet is banned in state, only 10% maybe miscreants," SG said.

The judge responded that if it is law and order situation, blocking may be in public interest. "That is where test of proportionality comes. Have you examined here larger public good?"

The SG then submitted that Telegram permits date and time editing. "They can post something today with editing and say that it (paper) was already available on the June 19. That is where public order comes...Merely based on proportionality your lordships may not consider when the potential harm is huge...22 lakh students appearing...factors are public order and incitement of commission of offence...students may come on street and might do something..."

SG added that Centre has taken "least restrictive" measure, after Telegram's own admission that "beyond this they cannot do anything and that they are considering."

Attorney General of India R Venkataramani also submitted, "Someone who cannot discharge its duty cannot seek proportionality. This platform because of 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 proportionality argument?"

The temporary blocking order against Telegram was passed following recommendations by the National Testing Agency and the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education.

Telegram asserts that it has put in place proactive measures by taking down more than 900 links involving unlawful NEET-related content, including the deployment of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools as proactive measures to address unlawful information on the platform.

It adds that Impugned Order is grossly disproportionate, affecting a blanket shutdown of a platform with over 150 Million users in India, including lakhs of students and educators who rely on the platform to prepare for competitive examinations – including NEET.

Telegram has further averred that it was not given a hearing as mandated under Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules – even though it was actively engaging with all authorized agencies over the past several weeks.

Responding to the action, Telegram's CEO Pavel Durov in an X post said that the action punishes 150M+ ordinary Telegram users in India, and not the “insiders” who leaked the exam materials.

“And the ban hasn't stopped anything. The leaks just moved to other apps. 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,” the post added.

National Testing Agency (NTA) in a press release issued yesterday, welcomed the directions issued in respect of Telegram.

Case Title: TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS