The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Centre’s temporary ban on messaging platform Telegram, noting that the government’s action was proportionate and justified in view of the alleged use of the platform by organised cheating networks linked to the NEET-UG 2026 controversy.
Since Telegram functions through software infrastructure constituting a “computer resource”, the government was legally empowered to direct a temporary block on the platform, the court said.
1 was empowered under Section 69A of the IT Act to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram,” it said.
Telegram had argued that it was being unfairly singled out while other social media platforms continued to operate.
However, the court held that the emergent circumstances surrounding the NEET-UG controversy justified the government’s intervention and that the temporary restrictions were proportionate to the objective of preventing misinformation and criminal activity.
The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Centre’s temporary ban on messaging platform Telegram, noting that the government’s action was proportionate and justified in view of the alleged use of the platform by organised cheating networks linked to the NEET-UG 2026 controversy.
Dismissing Telegram’s challenge to the June 16 emergency blocking order, the court found that the Union government had followed the procedure prescribed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and had recorded adequate reasons for invoking its emergency powers.
A significant aspect of the ruling is the court’s endorsement of the government’s interpretation of Section 69A.
Rejecting Telegram’s argument that the provision permits blocking only specific content and not an entire platform, the court held that the Act’s broad definition of “information” encompasses software and computer programmes. Since Telegram functions through software infrastructure constituting a “computer resource”, the government was legally empowered to direct a temporary block on the platform, the court said.
“An application or platform performs logical, arithmetic and memory functions through 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 of the IT Act to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram,” it said.
The court rejected Telegram’s contention that the order reflected non-application of mind, observing that the government had specifically cited the circulation of purported examination papers, fraudulent activities targeting students and the inability of existing measures to curb recurring violations.
Accepting the Centre’s argument that repeated attempts to tackle the problem through channel-specific takedowns on Telegram had failed, the court said, “The government’s measures are least restrictive. It cannot be held that the order is disproportionate.”
According to material placed before the government, operators of fraudulent networks were routinely creating mirror channels, backup groups and successor accounts after enforcement action, rendering targeted removals ineffective, the court said. The judgment noted that authorities had concluded that “nothing short of a platform-level measure” would protect the integrity of the examination during the critical period preceding the June 21 re-test.
Telegram had argued that it was being unfairly singled out while other social media platforms continued to operate. The company told the court that it had cooperated with authorities, removed flagged content within hours, and had taken down over 900 links related to unlawful NEET content using a combination of artificial intelligence tools and manual moderation.
However, the court held that the emergent circumstances surrounding the NEET-UG controversy justified the government’s intervention and that the temporary restrictions were proportionate to the objective of preventing misinformation and criminal activity.
