In a significant ruling on the Union government's powers to regulate online platforms, the Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Centre's decision to temporarily block Telegram ahead of the NEET-UG re-test, holding that a digital platform can be banned under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act if the statutory requirements are satisfied.
Dismissing Telegram's plea against the blocking order, Justice Tejas Karia observed that the government's decision was well founded and that the law specifically empowers authorities to restrict access to online platforms in appropriate circumstances. The temporary ban, imposed days before the NEET re-test scheduled on June 21, will remain in force until June 22.
The verdict marks a major victory for the Centre, which had defended the move as a necessary step to prevent the circulation of fake question papers, scams and misleading information linked to one of the country's most important entrance examinations.
The case arose after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) directed internet service providers to block Telegram, citing intelligence inputs and concerns that the platform was being widely used to spread fraudulent content related to NEET. The government argued that the measure was preventive in nature and aimed at protecting the integrity of the examination process.
Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that the government was confronted with an extraordinary situation. Referring to the proliferation of channels allegedly sharing fake question papers and misleading claims, he submitted that Telegram had effectively become a new dark web for examination-related fraud.
The government maintained that lakhs of students were preparing for the re-test and that even a small amount of misinformation could undermine public confidence in the examination process. It argued that waiting for violations to occur would defeat the very purpose of preventive action.
Telegram, however, mounted a strong challenge to the order, contending that the ban was disproportionate and unfairly penalised millions of legitimate users. Senior counsel appearing for the platform argued that the actions of a few bad actors could not justify shutting down an entire communication service used for education, business and personal communication.
The company told the court that it had consistently cooperated with Indian authorities and had mechanisms to respond to lawful requests for information. It argued that less restrictive alternatives, including targeted action against offending channels and groups, were available and should have been explored before resorting to a complete ban.
During the hearing, the court had examined whether the rights of millions of users could be curtailed because of misuse by a limited number of individuals. Telegram also raised concerns over freedom of speech and access to information, arguing that the blocking order had far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate examination controversy.
The Centre countered that the restriction was temporary, narrowly tailored and linked to a specific public interest objective. Government lawyers stressed that the order was limited to the period immediately preceding the NEET re-test and was intended solely to prevent the further spread of misleading content that could disrupt the examination.
Accepting the government's submissions, the High Court held that the blocking order could not be faulted. Justice Karia observed that Section 69A of the IT Act provides a statutory framework for blocking online content and platforms and that the government had acted within its powers.
The ruling comes against the backdrop of continuing concerns over the conduct of competitive examinations in India. NEET, which determines admission to medical colleges across the country, has faced repeated allegations of paper leaks, organised cheating and irregularities over the past two years. The controversy has led to multiple court proceedings and intensified scrutiny of examination security mechanisms.
For Telegram, the verdict is a setback in its effort to challenge the Centre's use of blocking powers. While the ban is temporary, the court's endorsement of the government's action strengthens the legal foundation for similar interventions in the future.
