Telegram has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the decision of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to ban the messaging platform till June 22 to address apprehensions of circulations of fake NEET question papers. The re-examination of the NEET is to take place on June 21. The government has also ordered the platform to disable the message-editing feature until...
Telegram has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the decision of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to ban the messaging platform till June 22 to address apprehensions of circulations of fake NEET question papers.
The re-examination of the NEET is to take place on June 21.
The government has also ordered the platform to disable the message-editing feature until June 30, 2026, as this function was reportedly being used to fabricate evidence of leaks.
A vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia has agreed to hear Telegram's matter today.
Follow this page for live updates from the hearing.
Court: Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. Anything any party wants to submit, submit by 7pm
On editing feature Mehta submits that the manner in which centre submitted that backdating feature works, was not the way it worked.
Mehta: timestamp will not change
Court: you need to deal with action taken by them
Mehta begins submissions on violation of fundamental rights.
Are you pressing FR? Court
Article 14 is always available: Mehta
Court: you are intermediary. You are following the law.
Mehta: they dont want to follow the law
Court: 69A order need not be a detailed order so long as material backs it. You are focussing more on procedure, non application of mind. Natural justice is fundamental. It cant be sole basis of challenge. There must be more. Let us meet that.
Mehta says that this must form part of the impugned communication.
Court: in the minutes it seems you are aware of architecture issue which is found unsatisfactory. Procedure we will deal with. Whether your architecture is such that less restrictive measures will meet the requirement?
Mehta says that in the interim direction/communication there is no reference to I4C report
SGI: telegram has responded to this.
Mehta: in Anuradha Bhasin court says that scope of 69A is limited
Court: question is what is info?…Argument here is you cannot block internet as a whole but you can block info.
Sr adv Dhruv Mehta making rejoinder submissions for petitioner
Attorney General of India: this order is complete, applies its mind. Someone who cannot discharge its duty cannot seek proportionality. This platform bcoz of unique architecture i would say is a frankenstein. If our country cant take preventive action where will we go?