The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its order on the Centre’s decision to temporarily restrict Telegram’s operations in India, a matter that has been linked to concerns over the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21. During the hearing, the court said, “Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. Anything any party wants to submit, submit by 7 pm."
The matter was heard by Justice Tejas Karia, who examined arguments from both Telegram and the Centre on issues including emergency powers, platform responsibility, security concerns, and whether blocking an entire application was a proportionate step.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for Telegram, while Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma represented the Centre.
Court questions blanket restriction on Telegram
According to the Livelaw report, during the hearing, Justice Karia questioned whether the rights of millions of users could be affected because of concerns linked to one group of candidates appearing for an examination.
“Can we stop rights of 150 million people just because one set of citizens are appearing in exams? Can you block someone else's right to protect somebody else? Is your exercise of right in facts and circumstances proportional?” the court asked.
The judge also questioned Telegram on whether the platform had adequate mechanisms, such as real-time monitoring, to prevent the circulation of alleged NEET paper leaks.
“Whether your architecture is such that less restrictive measures will meet the requirement?” the court asked Telegram.
Telegram argues blocking order lacks proper application of mind
As per Livelaw reports, appearing for Telegram, senior advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the Centre’s decision under emergency provisions of the Information Technology Rules required proper consideration of the available material.
He submitted that the authorities needed to record independent satisfaction before invoking such powers and alleged that the order did not show sufficient application of mind.
“You can't recite words of the section. The Supreme Court has criticised this approach. You have to look at the material and then say the satisfaction arrived at is on the basis of the material,” Mehta argued.
Telegram also contended that authorities could have targeted specific content instead of imposing a complete restriction on the platform, calling the action disproportionate.
The platform said it had already removed hundreds of links related to alleged NEET-related unlawful content and had deployed artificial intelligence and machine learning tools to detect and address misuse.
Court raises questions on Telegram’s responsibility as intermediary
During arguments, the court highlighted Telegram’s responsibilities as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.
As reported by Livelaw, the bench questioned how the platform could respond quickly if leaked material spreads rapidly.
“You have to perform due diligence under Section 79 IT Act as you are an intermediary. Section 79 is an independent obligation, nothing to do with 69A (blocking power) IT Act... Once complaint is received, by the time action is taken, damage is done. What real time surveillance is there on your platform?” the court asked.
Telegram maintained that claims of paper leaks were not genuine and that misinformation was being circulated. However, the court responded, “How do you know that? Problem is there is a paper.”
Centre defends restriction
Defending the government’s decision, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Telegram’s technical structure creates challenges for law enforcement agencies.
He said the platform’s bot infrastructure allows automated accounts to distribute content at a large scale with limited human intervention.
The Centre told the court that these features could enable the rapid spread of unlawful material and make enforcement difficult.
According to the government, Telegram’s use of bots, anonymous accounts, and features that conceal user identity can make it harder for authorities to trace communications and identify those involved in illegal activities.
Government says temporary restriction is a proportionate measure
On the question of proportionality, the Solicitor General argued that the restriction was temporary and connected to the NEET examination timeline.
He said authorities had considered whether blocking specific channels would be enough and concluded that wider action was required.
“Temporary event-based action is only till Monday (June 22). This shows application of mind,” the SG submitted.
He further argued that the potential harm involved, affecting millions of students appearing for the examination, justified the preventive step.
Telegram CEO opposes ban, says users are being affected
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov also criticised the restriction, stating that the move impacts ordinary users rather than those responsible for leaking examination material.
In a post on X, Durov said the ban had not stopped the circulation of leaked material and claimed that the content had simply moved to other platforms.
Telegram maintained that the restriction affects more than 150 million Indian users, including students and educators who use the platform for academic purposes.
The Centre’s temporary blocking order against Telegram was issued following recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Department of Higher Education.
