Telegram – Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Temporary App Ban
Telegram – The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its decision on a petition filed by Telegram challenging the Centre’s temporary restriction on the messaging platform, imposed ahead of the NEET re-examination. During the hearing, the government defended the move, arguing that it was necessary to prevent the spread of misleading information that could influence millions of students and potentially trigger public unrest.
Court Questions Impact on Users’ Rights
The matter came up before Justice Tejas Karia, who raised concerns about the effect of the restriction on a large number of users. The court questioned whether the rights of nearly 150 million users could be curtailed to safeguard the interests of a specific group of citizens appearing for examinations.
Justice Karia observed that the central issue was whether one set of rights could be limited in order to protect another. The court referred to legal principles established by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments dealing with internet access and restrictions on digital services.
Government Defends Preventive Action
Representing the Centre, Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that Telegram’s technical structure posed unique challenges for authorities. He described the platform as difficult to regulate and said preventive measures were sometimes necessary in situations where authorities anticipated risks to public order.
According to the government, the temporary suspension was intended to stop the circulation of false or misleading material related to the NEET examination. Officials maintained that such information could have serious consequences, particularly when millions of students and their families were involved.
Concerns Over Enforcement and Security
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the government, submitted that Telegram’s cloud-based architecture creates obstacles for law enforcement agencies. He argued that identifying individuals responsible for unlawful activities becomes significantly more difficult on such platforms.
The government further stated that Telegram has frequently been cited in investigations involving illegal activities, including security-related concerns. Based on these considerations, authorities believed that a short-term restriction was justified as a precautionary measure during a sensitive examination period.
Bench Refers to Supreme Court Principles
During the proceedings, the bench repeatedly questioned whether such a broad restriction could be justified when it affected millions of ordinary users. The court pointed to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Anuradha Bhasin case, which emphasized the importance of proportionality and legality in imposing restrictions on communication services.
In response, the Centre argued that the judgment did not create an absolute bar on blocking digital platforms. Government lawyers maintained that the law allows authorities to take action when circumstances require intervention in the larger public interest.
Telegram Challenges Government’s Reasoning
Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Telegram, strongly opposed the restriction and questioned the basis on which the order had been issued. He argued that the government had failed to demonstrate how concerns surrounding the NEET examination could be linked to issues affecting national sovereignty or integrity.
Telegram’s legal team also highlighted that promotional activities and information sharing occur across various digital platforms, suggesting that singling out one service required stronger justification. The company urged the court to examine whether sufficient consideration had been given before imposing the temporary ban.
Verdict Awaited
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on Telegram’s challenge. The temporary restriction is currently scheduled to remain in force until June 22, pending further judicial review. The case is expected to have broader implications for the balance between public interest, examination security, digital freedoms, and the regulation of online communication platforms.