Delhi High Court Hears Telegram Challenge to Temporary Ban Over NEET Leak

The Delhi High Court on Thursday began hearing a petition filed by the messaging platform Telegram, challenging the central government's decision to temporarily block the app in India until June 22. The government, at the request of the National Testing Agency (NTA), ordered the block citing concerns over the leak of question papers for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). The NEET is the key undergraduate medical entrance examination in India, and its cancellation earlier this year due to widespread paper leak allegations has prompted increased scrutiny of online platforms.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued the blocking order on June 16, directing internet service providers to restrict access to Telegram within India. The block is set to remain in effect until June 22. Additionally, the government directed Telegram to disable its message-editing feature in respect of messages already posted on the platform until June 30. The government argued that this feature allowed users to modify messages after posting, which could be used to create false evidence of paper leaks after the fact.

On June 17, a bench of Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Centre and listed the matter for further hearing on Thursday. The court had also directed Telegram to comply with the government's directive regarding the editing feature pending the hearing. Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for Telegram, while Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the Centre. The hearing commenced at 2:30 PM.

Telegram's petition argues that the temporary ban is disproportionate and violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The company contends that the block is a blanket restriction that affects all users, including those not involved in any wrongdoing. Telegram also argues that the government's action undermines the principle of due process, as the platform was not given an opportunity to respond before the order was issued.

The NTA, responsible for conducting the NEET, has defended its request by emphasizing the severity of the exam leak issue. The agency had cancelled the NEET after discovering that question papers were circulating on Telegram channels before the exam. The NTA claims that blocking the platform is necessary to prevent further leaks and to maintain the integrity of the examination process. The government has also argued that the message-editing feature posed a unique challenge in tracking the origin of leaked content.

Legal experts have noted that the case raises important questions about the scope of government power to block online platforms under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its compatibility with constitutional rights. The court's decision could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.

Civil society organizations have expressed concern over the blanket ban, arguing that it could set a dangerous precedent for internet censorship in India. They point out that while exam integrity is important, blocking an entire platform may not be the most proportionate response. Some have suggested that the government should instead focus on prosecuting individuals who leak papers, rather than restricting access to a communication tool used by millions.

Telegram, which claims to have over 500 million users worldwide, including a significant user base in India, has stated its commitment to cooperating with law enforcement while protecting user rights. The company has previously complied with Indian government requests to remove content related to exam leaks, but it maintains that a blanket block is excessive.

In court on Thursday, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing Telegram, argued that the government's order was passed without any prior notice or hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the platform had already taken down several channels and groups that were sharing leaked content, and that the government's action was a knee-jerk reaction. The Solicitor General countered that the urgency of the situation justified the immediate block, as the exam leak had caused widespread disruption and needed to be contained swiftly.

The bench reserved its order after hearing both sides. The court is expected to pronounce its decision shortly, possibly today.