The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in a petition filed by Telegram challenging the Union Government’s emergency blocking order issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act in connection with alleged misuse of the platform during the NEET UG 2026 and in connection with the upcoming NEET paper.
The matter was heard by Justice Tejas Karia. Telegram approached the High Court after the Government directed the blocking of the messaging platform till June 22, 2026, citing concerns over the circulation of purported examination papers, examination-related misinformation and fraudulent activities linked to the NEET examination. The order was issued following complaints from the National Testing Agency (NTA).
Counsel, appearing for Telegram, argued that the Government’s action was disproportionate and based on an improper invocation of emergency powers under Section 69A. He contended that Telegram had consistently complied with takedown requests and had independently removed hundreds of channels, bots and URLs linked to objectionable content. Telegram asserted that it had disabled more than 900 offending URLs on its own and had complied with government requests relating to approximately 400 additional URLs.
The Court extensively examined whether Section 69A permits blocking of an entire platform or is intended only for blocking specific information. During the hearing, Justice Karia observed that the central issue was whether the emergency power under Section 69A could justify blocking the entire application and whether such action satisfied the test of proportionality. The Court also noted that Telegram’s principal grievance was against the blocking of the platform as a whole rather than action against specific channels or accounts.
Telegram argued that the Government had failed to demonstrate why less restrictive measures would not suffice. It submitted that millions of users relied on the platform for legitimate purposes, including educational institutions and coaching centres that disseminated study material through Telegram channels. Telegram further contended that it had deployed artificial intelligence tools, hash-based detection systems, human moderation and other mechanisms to identify and remove unlawful content.
The Union Government, represented by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the blocking order, arguing that Telegram’s architecture posed unique enforcement challenges. The Government relied on reports prepared by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) and other material indicating that Telegram’s bot infrastructure, anonymity features and cloud-based design facilitated rapid dissemination and replication of unlawful content. It was argued that even after individual channels or bots were removed, mirror channels could be recreated within minutes, making conventional enforcement ineffective.
The Government further contended that Telegram’s design distinguished it from other intermediaries and justified the exercise of emergency powers. It argued that the platform’s inability to effectively prevent misuse, despite repeated engagements with authorities, necessitated stronger intervention to protect the integrity of national examinations and prevent public disorder.
The four issues repetitively highlighted were:
• an emergency situation existed;
• whether the statutory requirements under Section 69A had been satisfied;
• whether the Secretary had independently applied his mind before issuing the order; and
• whether blocking the entire platform was a proportionate response when less intrusive alternatives were available.
After hearing extensive submissions from both sides over multiple sessions, the Court reserved judgment.