The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by instant messaging platform Telegram against the Central Government’s emergency order temporarily blocking its services across India ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination.
The Court upheld the executive action, holding that the measure satisfied the strict judicial test of proportionality and fell squarely within the statutory powers vested under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed, “An application or platform performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions on electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses, and includes input, output, processing, storage, computer software, and communication facilities connected with a computer system or computer network. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that Respondent No. 1 was empowered under Section 69A to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram. We also hold that the test of proportionality has been satisfied, as the necessary requirements—namely, the identification of a legitimate objective, the existence of a rational nexus between the objective and the measure adopted, the necessity of the measure in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the adoption of the least restrictive measure available—have been met.”
It observed that, given the emergency nature of the impugned blocking order, the reasons applied by the Central Government in arriving at the decision were sufficient.
The Bench observed that Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) had strictly followed the statutory procedural steps as required under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and consequently, the challenge to the impugned order on the ground of non-communication of reasons could not be sustained.
The Court further held that both the interim impugned order and the final order were founded upon relevant material duly considered by Respondent No. 1, and that the conclusions recorded therein were adequately supported by the reasons set out in the respective orders.
The controversy arose after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an emergency blocking order under Section 69A of the IT Act, temporarily suspending access to Telegram across India from June 16 to June 22, 2026.
The Centre passed the directive following recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA) to prevent potential paper leaks, cheating rackets, and the spread of misinformation ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination scheduled for June 21.
“After considering all the arguments, we find that given the emergency nature of the impugned order, the reasons applied in arriving at the decision were sufficient. Respondent No. 1 has strictly followed the procedural steps as required under Section 69A of the Act, and the challenge to the impugned order on the ground of non-communication of reasons cannot be sustained. We also hold that both the impugned order as well as the final order are founded upon relevant material duly considered by Respondent No. 1, and that the conclusions recorded therein are supported by reasons set out in the orders”, the Court said.
The Court observed, “Accordingly, it is held that the orders do not suffer from the vice of non-application of mind as alleged by the petitioner. We also hold that under the IT Act, there is no reason to exclude an application or platform from the ambit of the expression “information”. The definitions of “computer resource” and “computer” make it evident that the information generated, transmitted, received, stored, or hosted through software-based infrastructure falls within the ambit of Section 69A of the Act.”
The Court further expounded that an application or platform performed logical, arithmetic, and memory functions on electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses, and inherently included input, output, processing, storage, computer software, and communication facilities connected with a computer system or a computer network. Accordingly, the High Court took the view that Respondent No. 1 was fully empowered under Section 69A of the Act to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram.
“Accordingly, the measures adopted by Respondent No. 1 under the orders constitute the least restrictive measure for achieving the stated objective. Therefore, the action of Respondent No. 1 in temporarily blocking public access to Telegram cannot be held to be disproportionate. In view of the above analysis, the present petition along with the pending application is hereby dismissed”, the Court concluded.
Aggrieved by the blanket restriction, Telegram filed an urgent writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The Court heard the extensive arguments and questioned the proportionality of the state’s extreme measures, orally asking how the rights of 150 million users could be blocked for an examination involving one set of citizens.
After concluding the hearing on June 18, 2026, the Bench reserved its verdict for pronouncement today.
Cause Title: Telegram FZ LLV & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 8259/2026 & CM APPL. 39036/2026]
Click here to read/download the Judgment
(This is a hearing story; the judgment was uploaded later.)
© Copyright 2022, All rights reserved.
Powered by Hocalwire
Leave a Reply