The Delhi High Court has affirmed the Central government's decision to temporarily restrict access to the instant messaging platform Telegram. This ruling comes ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination, with the court concluding that the government's actions were proportionate and specifically designed to address concerns over widespread examination malpractice.

Justice Tejas Karia delivered the verdict, dismissing Telegram's challenge against the blocking order. The court observed that the government's measures were the least restrictive option available, explicitly stating, "It cannot be held that the order is disproportionate." This judgment validates the government's use of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to impose such restrictions.

The temporary ban was initiated due to apprehensions that organized cheating networks were leveraging Telegram in connection with the NEET-UG controversy. The original NEET-UG exam, conducted on May 3, had been cancelled following allegations of paper leaks and other irregularities, a matter currently under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The National Testing Agency (NTA) had recommended the suspension, leading the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) to direct the temporary blocking of Telegram access across India until June 22. Additionally, the platform was instructed to disable its message-editing function for previously posted messages until June 30.

Telegram had contested the order in the High Court, arguing that the government had unfairly singled out its platform. The company contended that other social media intermediaries continued to operate without similar restrictions, asserting that the action violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, and lacked proportionality. Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing Telegram, questioned the rationale behind invoking Section 69A powers, particularly the government's assertion that the ban was "in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India." He asked, "An examination like NEET will affect the sovereignty and integrity of India? What is the application of mind?"

The messaging service maintained that it had actively engaged with government agencies since May, providing detailed explanations of its moderation practices and compliance efforts. According to Telegram, once specific URLs were shared by authorities on June 9, the problematic content was removed within an hour. The company further stated it had taken down over 900 links associated with unlawful NEET-related content and employed artificial intelligence, machine learning systems, and human moderation teams to detect and remove policy violations. Telegram also affirmed its compliance with applicable rules and its responsiveness to concerns regarding its platform's structure.

Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, defended the government's actions. He argued that authorities had adopted the least restrictive option to prevent further paper leaks and uphold the integrity of the examination process. Mehta highlighted Telegram’s architecture, suggesting it limited effective intervention during such circumstances, and pointed to the platform’s privacy framework, which allows for the deletion of stored data, messages, and media upon account deletion. He stressed the substantial consequences of misuse and justified the preventive action.

Attorney General R Venkataramani further supported the government's position, describing Telegram's architecture as a "Frankenstein." He argued that if a country like India could not take preventive action in such situations, it would be a grave concern. Venkataramani dismissed Telegram's argument of proportionality as "completely misconceived," especially from a platform created for monetary gain. The court had reserved its judgment on June 18 after hearing extensive submissions from both sides.

This ruling sets a significant precedent for how digital platforms might be regulated in India, particularly when national interests, such as the integrity of critical public examinations, are at stake. It underscores the government's authority under the IT Act to impose temporary restrictions on platforms deemed to be facilitating illegal activities, even if those platforms argue they are actively cooperating. For millions of students and parents, the decision reinforces the government's commitment to ensuring fairness in competitive exams, a crucial aspect of India's education system. The ongoing CBI investigation into the NEET-UG irregularities will continue to unfold, but this court decision clarifies the legal framework for immediate preventive measures against digital platforms in such crises.