Delhi HC Upholds Telegram Ban Before NEET Retest: 'Measures Least Restrictive'

The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Indian government's decision to block the messaging app Telegram ahead of the retest of the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET), ruling that the temporary restriction was a proportionate response to prevent cheating.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, presiding over the case, stated that given the emergency nature of the situation, the reasons provided by the government were sufficient and the procedure under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act had been followed. The court further noted that both the original blocking order and the subsequent review committee decision were reasoned and reflected due application of mind.

Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to direct intermediaries to block public access to online information under specified circumstances, including in the interest of public order or preventing incitement to an offence.

The court rejected Telegram's argument that the ban was disproportionate, accepting the central government's stance that the temporary measure was narrowly tailored to prevent misuse of the platform during the NEET re-examination. NEET is one of India's most competitive exams, with over two million aspirants vying for medical college seats.

The government initially blocked Telegram on Tuesday, citing concerns that the platform was being used to circulate leaked question papers. The NEET exam had been scrapped in May after allegations of a question paper leak, with reports pointing to Telegram channels as a medium for the leak.

In court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the ban, arguing that the decision was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate and was taken after careful consideration of available material. He emphasised the larger public interest in preserving the integrity of a nationwide examination that affects lakhs of students.

The government also informed the court that the blocking order had been reviewed by a committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary, which found sufficient grounds to continue the temporary restriction. The restriction is set to expire on June 22.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing Telegram, argued that the ban imposed a blanket restriction on an entire communication platform used by millions. He contended that the alleged conduct of certain users could not justify disabling access to the platform as a whole, and that less restrictive alternatives were available.

Telegram further claimed that it had cooperated with law enforcement and had acted against channels and groups found to be violating the law. The company argued that the blocking order failed the constitutional test of proportionality.

The court, however, ruled in favour of the government, stating that the measures adopted were the least restrictive available and that the new evidence presented by Telegram did not alter the conclusion. The case highlights the ongoing tension between security concerns and digital rights in India.