iWorld
Telegram challenges Delhi HC order restricting access over NEET leak clampdown move
Court allows urgent hearing as Telegram contests temporary ban over exam leak crackdown
DELHI: Telegram finds itself in a legal “chat” overdrive as it moves the Delhi High Court against a government order restricting access to the platform in India for a brief period linked to exam security concerns.
The messaging platform has challenged the Central Government’s directive to temporarily restrict access until June 22, a move aimed at curbing alleged paper leaks ahead of the NEET 2026 Re-Examination scheduled for June 21. The matter was mentioned before a vacation bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Tejas Karia, which allowed an urgent listing of the case for hearing.
The action follows recommendations from the National Testing Agency and the Department of Higher Education, under the broader oversight of the Government of India. Authorities have invoked provisions under Section 69A of the IT Act to justify the temporary restriction.
In response, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, posting on X, criticised the move, arguing that it unfairly impacts millions of ordinary users while failing to stop the circulation of leaked material. He claimed that such content has simply migrated to other platforms and said the company has already removed hundreds of related channels operating in India.
Separately, the NTA welcomed the government’s directions, which also include disabling Telegram’s message-editing feature in India until June 30. The regulator said the measures were necessary to tackle organised cheating networks allegedly exploiting the platform during the exam cycle, citing channels actively demanding money in exchange for purported access to leaked papers.
The action stems from coordinated references by the MeitY and the National Testing Agency, following inputs from enforcement bodies including the I4C. Officials said the restrictions are limited, time-bound, and intended as a last resort after earlier takedown efforts failed to curb the misuse.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case has sharpened the debate over platform accountability versus user access, with the court set to examine whether the temporary restriction stands the test of proportionality in tackling exam-related fraud.
