LAWYER SIBLING LOGO (1)
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • News
  • Updates
  • Constitution
    • Constitutional Laws
  • Laws
    • Civil Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Family Law
    • Real Estate Law
    • Business Law
    • Cyber & IT Law
    • Employee Law
    • Finance Law
    • International Law
  • Special Act
    • Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)
    • Consumer Protection Act
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act (NDPS)
    • The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)
  • Bare Act

Delhi High Court upholds temporary ban on Telegram ahead of NEET-UG 2026 re-test

19/06/2026BlogNo Comments

The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Central government’s decision to temporarily block messaging platform Telegram in India ahead of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2026 re-examination scheduled to be held on June 21.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the writ petition filed by Telegram challenging the blocking order, which will remain in force until June 22.

The temporary restriction was imposed following recommendations made by the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Department of Higher Education under the Ministry of Education. The government had invoked its powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, citing concerns over the alleged use of Telegram by organised cheating networks involved in the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak controversy.

Telegram had challenged the blocking order as arbitrary and disproportionate, contending that it had already taken extensive remedial measures to curb the circulation of unlawful examination-related content on its platform. The company informed the Court that it had removed more than 900 links associated with illegal NEET-related material and had deployed artificial intelligence, machine learning systems and manual moderation mechanisms to detect and eliminate content violating applicable laws and platform policies.

The Union government opposed the petition on the grounds that Telegram’s technical architecture and platform design significantly impeded effective law enforcement action.

The Centre submitted that the platform allowed the creation and deployment of automated accounts through bots capable of disseminating large volumes of information without continuous human intervention. According to the government, once a bot is blocked, mirror channels and alternate bots can rapidly emerge, allowing unlawful content to continue circulating despite enforcement measures.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that Telegram’s features facilitate the rapid and large-scale dissemination of examination-related material, thereby posing a serious threat to the integrity of competitive examinations and public order.

The Court raised concerns regarding the proportionality of the government’s action and orally questioned whether the rights of approximately 150 million Telegram users in India could be curtailed merely because a specific class of citizens, namely NEET aspirants, was appearing for a public examination.

Telegram had also relied upon a public statement issued by its Chief Executive Officer Pavel Durov, who criticised the government’s decision and contended that the blocking order adversely affected more than 150 million ordinary users of the platform rather than those directly responsible for leaking examination materials.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court declined to interfere with the government’s decision and upheld the temporary blocking order issued against Telegram in the interest of safeguarding the integrity and fairness of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination process.

The post Delhi High Court upholds temporary ban on Telegram ahead of NEET-UG 2026 re-test appeared first on India Legal.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Between The Law And A Hard Place
  • Protecting Childhood in the Courtroom
  • Karnataka High Court seeks SIT response on bail plea of Prajwal Revanna in nude video call case
  • Decolonising the Digital Age
  • Supreme Court terms pedestrians’ right to safe footpaths part of Articles 19 and 21

Recent Comments

  1. Phone Tracking In India - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  2. Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  3. The Evolution of Indian Penal Code 1860: Key Provisions and Relevance Today - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA

Follow us for more

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
DisclaimerPrivacy PolicyTerms and Conditions
All Rights Reserved © 2023
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Forgot Password?
Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.