Delhi High Court: Centre Defends Temporary Telegram Ban Citing Criminal Misuse

The Central government on Tuesday defended its temporary ban on the messaging platform Telegram before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the platform has become a hub for criminal activities, including the recent leak of the NEET examination paper.

The government submitted that Telegram's technical architecture, which allows large groups and channels with anonymous users, makes it difficult for law enforcement to track illegal activities. The platform has challenged the ban, calling it disproportionate and unconstitutional.

The ban, imposed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, is effective until June 22, ahead of the re-examination for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for medical admissions. The original test was cancelled in May after a paper leak, with investigations revealing that criminals used Telegram to share the leaked content.

In its affidavit, the government stated that a Telegram channel titled "NEET Mafia" had approximately 18,617 subscribers and was actively disseminating content related to the paper leak, including payment mechanisms and assurances of availability of exam material. The government described the ban as necessary to protect the integrity of the re-examination scheduled for June 21.

The government further argued that Telegram allows groups of up to 200,000 members and public channels with unlimited audiences, amplifying the reach of unlawful content. It claimed that the platform also enables users to operate with bots and usernames instead of phone numbers, making it fertile ground for criminal activity, including drug trafficking, terrorism, child exploitation, cyber scams, and fraud.

Telegram, in its petition, argued that a wholesale blocking of the app is impermissible under Indian law. The company said it has complied with existing laws and removed over 900 links related to unlawful NEET content using artificial intelligence, machine learning, and manual moderation.

The court is hearing the matter and has not yet issued a final order. The ban remains in place pending further proceedings.