Delhi High Court reserves verdict on Telegram’s plea against NEET-related restrictions
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its decision on a petition filed by Telegram challenging the Union government’s temporary restrictions on the messaging platform imposed ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination.
Justice Tejas Karia concluded hearings in the matter after considering submissions from counsel representing both Telegram and the Central government. The Court permitted all parties to file any additional written submissions by the end of the day before passing its final order.
The dispute revolves around the government’s decision to restrict access to Telegram until June 22 and suspend the platform’s message-editing feature until June 30. Telegram has argued that the measures were excessive and lacked sufficient legal justification.
Appearing for the platform, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta contended that the final government order merely reaffirmed an earlier interim directive and suffered from legal shortcomings. He argued that authorities had not demonstrated the existence of circumstances severe enough to warrant restrictions affecting the entire platform. According to Telegram, specific channels or content allegedly linked to examination malpractice could have been targeted instead of imposing broader limitations.
During the hearing, the Court noted that the post-decisional hearing granted to Telegram formed part of the statutory process and that the validity of the government’s action would ultimately depend on the factual circumstances underlying the case.
The Bench observed that Telegram’s challenge was broadly based on four grounds: the absence of a genuine emergency, the availability of narrower alternatives, alleged non-application of mind by decision-makers and the claim that the restrictions failed the constitutional principle of proportionality.
At the same time, the Court pointed out that official records appeared to indicate multiple consultations and discussions before the order was issued. It also remarked that Telegram had not fully addressed the measures taken by authorities to respond to the situation that prompted the restrictions.
Justice Karia repeatedly emphasized that the central issue before the Court was not the existence of the government’s powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, but whether those powers had been exercised in a lawful and proportionate manner. The Court indicated that the key question was whether the available material justified imposing restrictions on the entire platform rather than adopting a narrower approach.
While acknowledging concerns about the impact of examination-related misconduct on students, the Court also reflected on the broader implications of platform-wide restrictions, observing that the extent of governmental intervention must remain subject to legal limits.
Defending the decision, the Centre relied on an affidavit stating that authorities had received several complaints alleging that Telegram was being used to circulate leaked NEET examination content and coordinate fraudulent activities connected with the test.
According to the government’s submissions, officials initially explored less restrictive options and held discussions with Telegram representatives in early June. During those interactions, concerns were reportedly raised regarding the platform’s ability to detect and curb channels involved in distributing examination material and facilitating malpractice.