© Copyright 2026 The Week Online. All rights reserved.
The government's rationale for the block centers on Telegram's alleged misuse by criminal and extremist groups, citing difficulties in regulation due to its architecture, including features that facilitate rapid content replication and anonymous operations
Kanu Sarda
Updated – June 18, 2026 05:27 PM IST
3 minute Read
Link Copied
The Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on Telegram's challenge to the Centre's decision to temporarily block the platform until June 22, ahead of the NEET 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21
The Centre defended the ban, arguing that Telegram's architecture enables cybercrime, extremist activity, exam paper leaks and other illegal content, while claiming that weeks of engagement with the platform had failed to address these concerns
Telegram argued that the ban is disproportionate and affects millions of legitimate users
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, reserved its verdict on messaging platform Telegram’s challenge to the Centre’s decision to temporarily block access to the platform till June 22, ahead of the NEET 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21. The court allowed both sides to file any additional submissions by 7 pm before reserving judgment.
The government defended the blocking order by portraying Telegram as a platform that has become increasingly difficult to regulate and widely misused by criminal and extremist networks. Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that repeated engagements with Telegram had failed to address structural issues in the platform’s architecture, which allegedly facilitate the spread of illegal content and coordinated criminal activity.
The Centre told the court that Telegram’s design allows the creation of multiple bots, rapid replication of channels and anonymous operations, making enforcement efforts ineffective. It relied on inputs from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) and claimed the platform has been used for cyber fraud, dissemination of extremist content, circulation of child sexual abuse material, sale of mule bank accounts, malware distribution and the sharing of leaked examination papers, including NEET-related material.
The government also argued that Telegram’s privacy features and cloud-based architecture make it difficult to identify offenders and preserve evidence. According to the Centre, less restrictive measures had been attempted over several weeks but proved inadequate. Mehta told the court that authorities had been engaging with Telegram since May and that the decision to block the platform was not taken overnight.
Telegram, however, maintained that the ban is a disproportionate response to the actions of a small number of users and that it acted promptly whenever authorities flagged objectionable content.
Senior counsel appearing for the platform argued that Telegram removed the channels and links identified by the government, often within hours of receiving complaints. The company contended that these actions were not adequately considered before the blocking order was issued. During earlier proceedings, Telegram had also questioned the invocation of emergency powers under the Information Technology blocking rules, arguing that the government had known about the alleged problem for weeks and had not demonstrated any sudden emergency warranting a nationwide ban.
The platform has further argued that the order unfairly affects millions of legitimate users and raises concerns relating to freedom of speech and access to information. Telegram has described the measure as unconstitutional and excessive, particularly when alternative enforcement mechanisms were available.
One aspect that received attention during Thursday’s hearing was the government’s separate direction requiring Telegram to disable its message-editing feature until June 30. The Centre has alleged that the feature could be misused to create a false appearance that leaked question papers had been circulated before an examination. Telegram disputed some of the government’s technical assertions regarding the feature, while the court sought clarification on the actual functioning of message timestamps and editing tools.
Justice Tejas Karia also questioned both sides on whether less restrictive alternatives could adequately address the government’s concerns. At one stage, the court observed that challenges to a blocking order cannot rest solely on procedural objections and indicated that the broader issue would be whether Telegram’s architecture permits effective regulation through measures short of a complete ban.
The case is likely to have wider implications beyond the NEET controversy. The verdict could influence how courts balance government concerns over security and public order with the rights and responsibilities of digital platforms.
Leave a Reply