New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Friday dismissed Telegram’s challenge to the Centre’s order temporarily blocking the messaging platform in India ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination Sunday.
Justice Tejas Karia ruled that the government’s order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was well founded and supported by reasons.
“Government’s order is well founded. A platform can be banned under Section 69A of the IT Act,” the bench said.
The court held that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had followed the due procedure under Section 69A and that the reasons supplied were sufficient given the emergency nature of the situation.
The challenge on the ground of non-supply of reasons could not be sustained, the court said, adding that the government orders did not suffer from “non-application of mind”.
The court also rejected Telegram’s argument that the IT Act did not permit blocking of an entire platform. The bench held that there was no reason to exclude a platform from the ambit of “information” under the Act, a key point of contention during the hearing where Telegram’s counsel had argued that Section 69A allowed the government to block specific content or channels, not an entire platform.
On the question of proportionality, the court ruled that the government was empowered under Section 69A to direct blocking of access to Telegram and that the test of proportionality was satisfied. “The government’s measures are least restrictive. It cannot be held that the order is disproportionate,” the court said.
The ruling brings to a close a dispute that began after MeitY issued a direction on 15 June restricting access to Telegram in India till 22 June, along with a separate order disabling the platform’s message-editing feature till 30 June.
The government had justified the restrictions by calling them “necessary to protect the integrity” of the NEET-UG re-examination, citing concerns over circulation of examination material and misleading claims of paper leaks.
Dubai-headquartered Telegram then approached the Delhi High Court arguing that the order “disproportionately affected over 150 million users in India” and that the government had singled out the platform while other intermediaries like Instagram, WhatsApp and X continued to operate without restriction.
‘Date, time of posting can be modified’
During the hearing Thursday, Justice Karia asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: “Can we stop rights of 150 million people just because one set of citizens are appearing for exams? Can you block someone else’s right to protect somebody else? Is your exercise of right in facts and circumstances proportional?”
The court also pressed Telegram on whether it had explored less intrusive measures. “Whether your architecture is such that less restrictive measures will meet the requirement?” Justice Karia asked the platform’s counsel.
Mehta, appearing for the Centre along with Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, had told the court that the blocking order was passed after due procedure and was reviewed by a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
On the message-editing feature, he had told the court that “the date and time of the posting can be modified or edited and it can be shown as 18th, and people will be on the streets that the paper was leaked on 19th of June. That had happened in 2024”.
Mehta had also defended the scope of the government’s blocking powers, telling the court that “any information can include all information”, in response to Telegram’s argument that Section 69A could not be used to block an entire platform.
Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Telegram, had argued that the blocking order was ultra vires the statute and reflected a “complete non-application of mind”, submitting that at best the Centre could have sought removal of specific objectionable posts rather than block the platform.
Justice Karia had also remarked during the hearing that Telegram, as a significant social media intermediary under the IT Rules, carried additional responsibilities.
“The question of fundamental right to freedom of speech is of your users,” he had said, adding that the Karnataka High Court has held that the platform itself does not have a fundamental right to freedom of speech.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: India’s Telegram ban: What CEO Pavel Durov said on Reliance, Meta & Modi govt’s move