Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate – Delhi HC

In a recent judgment Delhi High Court upheld the action of Government of India in temporarily blocking public access to Telegram Application

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5172 (2026) (06) abacus.in HC

In The instant case, the Telegram App owner company (the Petitioner) had challenged the direction of the Government to block access to Telegram.

The Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) was informed by the National Testing Agency (NTA) of the misuse of Telegram Application in respect of the paper leak in NEET Test UG 2026. Subsequently, on MeitY instance, the Telegram owner company (the Petitioner) took down list of URLs pertaining to Telegram channels, accounts and bots in respect whereof complaints had been received alleging their involvement in fraud relating to the NEET UG, 2026 examination.

One week thereafter, the Government of India gave passed an order u/s 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the Act) directing to the Department of Telecommunication inter alia to instruct application stores and internet service providers to block / disable access to Telegram till 22.06.2026 and the matter was placed before a Committee for consideration and recommendation.

The said Committee observed that, despite repeated takedown measures and engagement, unlawful channels continued to re-emerge through backup channels and bots, thereby rendering narrower measures ineffective. Having regard to the fact that the NEET UG, 2026 re-examination was scheduled to be conducted on 21.06.2026, the Committee concluded that a temporary platform-wide blocking of Telegram, along with disabling of the message-editing feature, was necessary and proportionate for protecting the integrity of the examination and maintaining public order. Accordingly, the Govt. confirmed the Impugned Order issued under Section 69A of the Act with immediate effect.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no cavil that every decision of a statutory or administrative authority must be supported by reasons, which constitute an essential facet of the principles of natural justice. Reasons serve to establish the nexus between the material placed before the authority and the conclusion arrived at by it and further demonstrated that the authority had applied its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that in view of the  emergency nature of the Impugned Order, the reasons supplied in arriving at the decision were sufficient. As Govt. had strictly followed the procedural steps as required under Section 69A of the IT Act, the challenge to the Impugned Order on the ground non-communication of reasons cannot be sustained.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that Section 69A of the IT Act read with the 2009 Rules, contemplates that, in cases of emergency such as the present one, an interim blocking direction may be issued upon the satisfaction of the Secretary of GoI, as to the existence of the conditions specified under Section 69A of the Act. Thereafter, a post-decisional hearing is required to be afforded to the intermediary before a final order is passed, either confirming or revoking the interim blocking direction. In such circumstances, the Petitioners’ insistence that detailed reasons ought to had been supplied in the Impugned Order itself prior to the grant of an opportunity of hearing was without merit.

The Hon’ble High Court further noted that an application or platform performs logical, arithmetic and memory functions through electronic, magnetic or optical impulses, and includes input, output, processing, storage, computer software and communication facilities connected with a computer system or computer network. Accordingly, this the GoI was empowered under Section 69A of the Act to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram.

The one important question put up by the Petitioner was whether the blocking public access to Telegram can withstand scrutiny on the touchstone of proportionality, particularly where the stated object is to prevent misuse of the platform, but the measure also affects the ability of approximately 150 million Telegram users in India to access the platform for lawful and innocuous purposes.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the doctrine of proportionality requires the authority imposing restrictions upon fundamental rights to identify the legitimate objective sought to be achieved by such restriction. The measure adopted must bear a rational nexus with the said objective and must be necessary for its attainment. Further, the authority is required to adopt only the least restrictive measure available in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that in view of the large-scale addition of users to channels and groups, any unlawful content, if circulated on Telegram, is capable of being amplified rapidly and likely to give rise to a public order situation. Telegram also hosts an extensive bot ecosystem, which facilitates automated dissemination of content and other activities without human intervention. Further, the use of usernames in lieu of phone numbers enables concealment of user identifiers and facilitates the rapid dissemination of content, including content that may be illicit in nature.

The Hon’ble High Court also noted that even where a particular channel is identified and, thereafter, disabled pursuant to complaints made by the concerned authorities, the subscriber base of such channel does not necessarily cease to exist, as Telegram’s architecture permits the rapid creation of mirror channels under different names or identifiers, to which existing subscribers may be redirected. Further, Telegram permits messages, including files, to be edited at a later point in time. Such functionality may be employed to disseminate misinformation by editing messages sent prior in time by replacing the attachment to give impression that the examination paper was leaked prior to the examination even though such editing takes place after conclusion of the examination. Therefore, it is evident that narrower measures, including the takedown of specific bots and channels, were ineffective having regard to the particular nature and architecture of the Telegram platform.

As a result, the Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of GoI in temporarily blocking public access to Telegram being not disproportionate.

Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>