|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Centre’s decision to temporarily block Telegram social media platform in the country ahead of the June 21 NEET Undergraduate (UG), 2026, re-test saying “unlawful content, if circulated on” it “is capable of being amplified rapidly and likely to give rise to a public order situation”.
A Single Judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia said it’s functionality which allows files sent prior in time to be edited at a later point and yet retain the prior date, “may be employed to disseminate misinformation” regarding NEET.
The court said “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. Accordingly, any subsequent editing of messages relating to NEET UG, 2026 may mislead general public and, consequently, give rise to a potential public order situation.”
The HC said “unlike other conventional platforms, Telegram is entirely cloud-based, thereby enabling the storage and retrieval of large volumes of content. 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 judgement added “it is noteworthy that Telegram permits the large-scale addition of users to channels and groups. The platform architecture of Telegram is conducive to amplification and mass dissemination of content, enabling information to reach a substantial number of users within a short span of time. Consequently, any unlawful content, if circulated on Telegram, is capable of being amplified rapidly and likely to give rise to a public order situation.”
On the ineffectiveness of blocking individual channels, the HC said, “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. As a result, illicit activity may resume within a short period notwithstanding takedown action against the original channel.”
The court noted that the blocking order “expressly record that entity-specific interventions, including the reporting and removal of channels, groups, bots, and accounts, were repeatedly found to be ineffective and inadequate. Further, the audience-migration mechanisms enable operators to rapidly reconstitute networks after enforcement action was taken by the concerned authorities.”
The bench said “it is clearly observed in the (blocking) Orders that despite corrective measures having been sought in relation to various misuses of the Telegram platform, fresh material, including reports received from” Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and Ministry of Home Affairs “disclosed the continued occurrence of illicit activities by unlawful entities notwithstanding prior interventions. 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.”
The court pointed out that the NEET UG, 2026 examination is scheduled to be held on June 21 and temporary blocking is operative only until June 22 and the disabling of the message-editing feature is till June 30.
“The limited temporal scope of these measures demonstrates that they are narrowly tailored and confined to the period strictly necessary for securing the stated objective”, it said.
Applying the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in its 2020 judgement in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, the court said it “is satisfied that the requirements of proportionality stand fulfilled, namely: (i) identification of a legitimate objective; (ii) existence of a rational nexus between the objective and the measure adopted; (iii) necessity of the measure in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (iv) adoption of the least restrictive measure available.”
The SC had in the case held that restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate and that only the least restrictive measure may be adopted while imposing such restrictions.
The HC judgement added, “accordingly, the measures adopted by the Centre “under the Orders constitute the least restrictive measure for achieving the stated objective. Accordingly, the action of” the government “in temporarily blocking public access to Telegram cannot be held to be disproportionate”.
