New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Russian messaging platform Telegram’s plea challenging the temporary ban imposed by the central government in view of the NEET re-examination scheduled for June 21, providing no relief to the messaging platform.
What did the Delhi High Court say?
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea by Telegram challenging the central government’s decision to temporarily ban the messaging platform till June 22 to prevent paper leaks ahead of the NEET 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21.
A bench headed by Justice Tejas Karia stated that the government had complied with the law. The court ruled that the government had complied with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
“The government’s order is well-founded. A platform can be banned under Section 69A of the IT Act,” Justice Karia ruled.
The court rejected Telegram’s argument that it had not provided a reason for the temporary ban. The High Court held that the central government’s order was correct. The court reserved its decision on June 18.
What did the government say?
During the hearing, the central government described Telegram as a new dark web, a platform through which illegal activities and unlawful acts are carried out. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, argued that it enables criminals to carry out their illegal activities. It is extremely difficult for investigating agencies to apprehend those committing crimes.
What is the order?
The central government’s affidavit stated that Telegram was used extensively during the NEET exam, leading to the cancellation of the exam. They stated that the Ministry of Electronics and IT had only ordered a ban on the Telegram app until June 22 under Section 69A of the IT Act.
The second order mandates that Telegram disable the editing feature by June 30. The central government stated that this order was necessary to maintain transparency during the NEET re-examination scheduled for June 21.
What did the Attorney General say?
Attorney General R. Venkataramani also appeared on behalf of the central government during the hearing.
The Attorney General stated that the central government’s order was self-contained. He stated that in a country like ours, where would we go if preventive measures were not taken? He stated that platforms created for profit cannot cite the principle of proportionality. He stated that the central government had not touched any other platforms. They are more powerful, but they have their own filtration system.
