NEET paper leak row: Telegram ban stays as Delhi HC gives Centre a major win

Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Centre's decision to temporarily block Telegram in India ahead of the NEET-UG re-examination, dismissing the messaging platform's challenge against the ban. The ruling allows the restriction to remain in force until June 22, with the government arguing that the measure is necessary to prevent organised cheating and protect the integrity of the examination process.

Delhi High Court backs Centre's decision

The verdict was delivered by Justice Tejas Karia, who dismissed Telegram's petition challenging the government's temporary blocking order.

The Centre had imposed the restriction citing concerns that Telegram was being used by organised cheating networks to circulate leaked examination material related to the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).

With the court siding with the government, Telegram will remain inaccessible in India until June 22, when the temporary order is scheduled to end.

Government cites exam integrity concerns

During the hearing, the Union Government argued that the ban was necessary to ensure the fair conduct of the NEET re-examination.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the decision was based on credible evidence indicating large-scale misuse of the platform.

The Centre maintained that the blocking order was issued after following all legal procedures and was aimed at preventing further circulation of leaked exam papers and related content.

According to the government, the restriction was a preventive measure rather than a punitive one.

Centre invokes Section 69A of IT Act

The government relied on provisions under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which allows authorities to block online platforms under specific circumstances.

Officials argued that Telegram's features and operational structure created challenges for law enforcement agencies attempting to curb the spread of leaked examination material.

The Centre also informed the court that the decision had been reviewed by the Review Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary, which found sufficient grounds to continue the temporary restriction.

Government lawyers stated that all statutory safeguards required under the law had been followed before the order was issued.

Telegram argues ban is disproportionate

Representing Telegram, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the blocking order imposed a blanket restriction on a platform used by millions of people across India.

Telegram contended that the alleged actions of a limited number of users could not justify disabling access to the entire service.

The company further submitted that it had cooperated with law enforcement authorities and had taken action against channels and groups found violating legal norms.

Telegram also argued that less restrictive alternatives were available and that the order failed the constitutional test of proportionality.

Court sides with public interest argument

The Centre emphasised that protecting the integrity of a nationwide examination attended by lakhs of students was a matter of significant public interest.

Government lawyers argued that where credible evidence points to large-scale misuse of a platform, authorities are empowered to take preventive action.

The court ultimately accepted the government's position and allowed the temporary ban to continue.

Impact on students and users

The ruling means millions of Telegram users in India will continue to face restricted access until at least June 22.

The case has sparked debate over the balance between platform accountability, digital freedoms and the need to safeguard public examinations from organised malpractice.

While the government views the move as necessary to protect the credibility of the NEET re-examination, critics argue that blanket platform bans can affect legitimate users who have no connection to alleged wrongdoing.

For now, however, the Delhi High Court's decision has cleared the way for the Centre's temporary restriction to remain in effect during the critical examination period.