Court Upholds Government's Telegram Ban Amid NEET Controversy

The ongoing dispute regarding the NEET-UG 2026 examination has escalated into a significant issue concerning judicial and national security, as the central government and Telegram find themselves at odds. The Delhi High Court has dismissed Telegram's petition challenging the temporary ban imposed by the government. The court affirmed that under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the government is authorized to restrict access to this platform, and in the current context, the government's decision is justified and based on solid grounds.

Prior to the NEET-UG re-examination scheduled for June 21, the central government imposed a temporary ban on Telegram until June 22. The government cited concerns that the platform was being exploited for leaking question papers, spreading false claims, cybercrime, and organized fraud. This action, taken on the recommendation of the National Testing Agency, was not only aimed at preserving the integrity of the examination but also at safeguarding the futures of millions of students.

It is noteworthy that the NEET exam held on May 3 was canceled on May 12 due to allegations of question paper leaks. The investigation is currently under the jurisdiction of the CBI, which has uncovered evidence of several Telegram channels charging students thousands to millions of rupees under the guise of 'paper leaks.' Channels with names like 'Leaked NEET,' 'Re-NEET 2026,' 'Private Mafia,' and 'Re-NEET Mafia' were openly operational. Thus, the government's concerns were not merely speculative but grounded in concrete experiences and investigations.

During the court proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta elaborated on the structure of Telegram, highlighting its potential for misuse. He explained that a single user can create up to 40 bots, a feature that is limited on other platforms. These bots can quickly disseminate messages to millions, creating organized networks. Alarmingly, Telegram's framework allows criminals to operate under false identities, utilize cloud-based operations, and frequently change groups, evading law enforcement agencies.

The government also informed the court that merely removing channels does not resolve the issue. As soon as one channel is shut down, new groups, bots, and identities emerge with the same content. This is why the government felt it necessary to implement a broad temporary ban. Additionally, it was noted that the message editing feature on Telegram was being misused to add new files to old messages, perpetuating the confusion around question paper leaks. Consequently, the decision was made to suspend the message editing feature until June 30 as a precautionary measure.

Moreover, the government's argument extended beyond just the examination. The affidavit from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology stated that Telegram is increasingly becoming the preferred platform for cybercriminals, terrorist networks, drug traffickers, and financial fraudsters. Citing a report from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, the government revealed that over 275,000 fraud cases linked to Telegram were reported in 2025, amounting to complaints of ₹3,086 crores in scams. This statistic underscores that the issue transcends a mere app or privacy concern, touching on national security and public interest.

During the hearing, the court raised a crucial question about how the rights of 150 million users could be restricted due to the actions of a few individuals. Justice Tejas Karia expressed concerns regarding freedom of expression and communication, questioning whether the rights of other citizens could be compromised for the sake of one group's safety. This inquiry is a natural one in a democratic framework. However, the court ultimately concluded that, given the current circumstances, the government's action was proportional and necessary.

This entire matter relates to the accountability of digital platforms. When a platform becomes a safe haven for criminals due to its technical structure, weakens the reach of investigative agencies, and promotes organized crime, the government's responsibility cannot simply be to observe. While freedom of expression is vital, a more significant question arises: can tech companies operate above the law?

In essence, the Delhi High Court's ruling is significant in this context. The court indicated that digital platforms cannot evade responsibility by merely being labeled as 'technical intermediaries.' If a platform's structure provides protection to criminals, the government can and should intervene. In examinations like NEET, where the futures of millions of students are at stake, any leniency could undermine the credibility of the entire education system.

It is clear that the central government's concerns regarding Telegram are not merely political or administrative reactions but serious issues related to national interest, examination integrity, and cybersecurity. The court's endorsement has clarified that digital freedom cannot equate to chaos.