‘Law and order situation’ around NEET retest necessitates temporary ban on Telegram: Centre tells Delhi HC

The Indian government recently defended its decision to temporarily ban the Telegram messaging app in the country, arguing that its unique architectural features pose significant risks to national security and academic integrity. The ban, imposed ahead of the NEET-UG re-examination on June 21, 2026, was challenged in the Delhi High Court, prompting a detailed legal debate over the justification for restricting access to such a widely used platform. According to the government’s arguments presented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Telegram’s design enables the rapid spread of misinformation and facilitates organized cheating, particularly in high-stakes examinations like NEET.

At the heart of the government’s case was Telegram’s bot infrastructure, which allows a single user to create up to 40 bots. These automated accounts can be used to generate vast networks of fake accounts, enabling the mass distribution of illicit content without direct human involvement. Mehta emphasized that this capability sets Telegram apart from other messaging platforms like WhatsApp, where each user is limited to creating only one bot. The government cited reports from the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) to support its claim that Telegram’s structure is inherently more vulnerable to misuse compared to alternatives.

Another critical factor highlighted by the government was Telegram’s use of cloud-based systems, which complicates efforts by law enforcement to trace the origins of illegal activity. Mehta pointed out that even if an account is blocked, investigators often struggle to determine the real identity of the person behind the account, thereby hampering investigations into criminal behavior. This lack of accountability, combined with Telegram’s capacity for rapid network expansion, was framed as a major threat to public safety and the integrity of exams.

The government also underscored Telegram’s role in facilitating terrorism and other illegal activities, noting that it has drawn attention from multiple international jurisdictions. Mehta referenced a government report stating that Telegram is "most preferred" for terrorist operations due to its features, including the ability to edit messages and manipulate timestamps. This feature, he argued, allows malicious actors to alter the appearance of content—such as leaking exam papers—to create false narratives. For instance, during the 2024 NEET controversy, unauthorized documents were uploaded and later modified to seem as though they had been shared earlier, fueling widespread unrest among students and parents.

In response to these claims, Telegram’s legal representatives argued that the blanket ban on the platform was disproportionate and violated the rights of its 150 million users in India. They claimed that the company had already taken steps to remove content related to the alleged NEET paper leak and had cooperated fully with government directives. However, the government maintained that these measures were insufficient to address the broader risks posed by Telegram’s design and functionality.

The Delhi High Court raised important questions during the hearing, challenging the legality of restricting access to a platform based on the potential misuse by a minority. It asked whether it was appropriate to curtail the rights of the majority to protect the interests of a few. Mehta responded by drawing parallels to state-level internet shutdowns, suggesting that such measures are necessary to prevent larger societal harm. Meanwhile, the Attorney General, R. Venkatramani, reiterated the government’s stance that the ban was a preventive measure aimed at maintaining law and order.

As the court continues to deliberate on the merits of the case, the outcome could set a precedent for how governments handle digital platforms that pose perceived threats to public order. The debate highlights the complex balance between protecting citizens from online harms and respecting the fundamental rights of individuals to access and use digital tools freely. With the ban still in effect and the legal proceedings ongoing, the future of Telegram in India remains uncertain, pending the court’s final ruling.