PETITIONER TELEGRAM FZ LLC
RESPONDENT UNION OF INDIA
COURT HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JUDGE TEJAS KARIA J
JUDGEMENT DATE 19 JUNE, 2026
CITATION W.P.(C) 8259/2026 & CM APPL.39036/2026
FACTS
1. NTA vide letter dated 21.05.2026 informed MeitY about the misuse of Telegram application by third parties in respect of Neet UG, 2026[1]. MeitY issued notice dated 01.06.2026 convening meeting on 03.06.2026 with Petitioners and NTA considering the scale and nature of the alleged misuse of Telegram by third parties in relation to Neet UG, 2026.
2. Petitioners vide email dated 01.06.2026 acknowledged the receipt of notice issued by MeitY, prior to the meeting the petitioners submitted detailed response dated 02.06.2026 to the notice. Petitioners vide email dated 04.06.2026 addressing the post meeting communication which includes issues raised concerning Neet UG, 2026.
3. MeitY issued document dated 05.06.2025, recording the minutes of meeting. Petitioners vide email of same date disputed the minutes of meeting as issued by MeitY and furnished their clarification to that. E-mail dated 09.06.2026 MeitY shared with Petitioners the list of URLs pertaining to Telegram channels, accounts and bots in respect of alleged involvement of fraud relating to Neet UG, 2026.
4. Petitioners vide email dated 05.06.2026 acknowledged receipt of said list of URLs shared by MeitY and informed MeitY that the URLs had been taken down. On 16.06.2026 Respondent no.1, by the way of Impugned order issued following directions: –
i) Telegram & its associated URLs got blocked across whole India within one hour of the receipt of Impugned Order till 22.06.2026.
ii) Telegram to temporary disable message editing feature till 30.06.2026.
iii) Department of Telecommunication instructed application stores and internet service providers to block/disable access to Telegram till 22.06.2026.
iv) Designated Officer placed before Committee under Rule 7[2] of IT (Procedure and safeguards for blocking for access of information by public) Rules 2009 for the consideration and recommendation within 48 hours of issuance of Impugned Order. The petitioners aggrieved by the impugned order, filed the present petition before the Hon’ble Court.
5. Committee of Respondent No.1 under Rule 7 of 2009 Rules passed the final order upon considering the material placed, Impugned order, reports of NTA and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (14C). By hearing both parties on 17.06.2026 concluded that Telegram was repeatedly being misused in connection with fraud related to Neet UG, 2026 inter alia, by initiating the circulation of misleading information.
6. Respondent No.1 further observed that by following several takedown measures and engagement, unlawful channels continued to re-emerge through backup channels and bots rendering narrower measures ineffective. Fact that Neet UG, 2026 re- examination scheduled to be conducted on 21.06.2026, Committee conclude that temporary blocking of platform along with disabling of message editing feature was necessary and proportionate for protecting the integrity of examinations and maintaining the public order. Respondent No.1 confirmed the impugned order issued under section 69 A[3] of IT Act with immediate effect.
ISSUES RAISED
7) Upon hearing the both parties’ submissions placed on records, the following issue arises for determination: –
I) Whether the impugned order passes by Respondent No. 1 is vitiated by non – application of mind?
II) Whether the actions of Respondent No.1 in temporarily blocking public access to entire Telegram platform that satisfies the requirement of proportionality?
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY PARTIES
Submissions on Behalf of Petitioners
8) From 20.05.2026 the petitioner provided extended support and Bonafide cooperation to the Respondents in relation to alleged circulation of fraudulent content relating to NEET UG,2026. Vide the Reply the Petitioners informed MeitY that Telegram does not permit its services for examination of fraud, cheating, impersonation and sale or distribution of examination material. The Reply states that Telegram maintains a comprehensive content moderation framework, comprising Artificial Intelligence and machine learning tools, hash-based detection mechanisms and human moderators who actively review platform and remove unlawful content.
9) The Reply further highlighted that users on detecting the suspicious activity can use in-app reporting tools, while anti-spasm regulates privacy controls and put warning labels such as Scam and fake to operate. Strict enforcement measures including content removal, account restrictions and permanent bans were imposed on violators in relation to Neet UG, 2026. The impugned order does not explain the adequate reasons for imposing the ban on whole platform and why the extreme necessary step to address the content relating to Neet UG, 2026.
10) After passing of impugned order petitioners complied with the directions issues by respondents and disabled 900 URLs out of 1000 URLs communicated to them by MeitY email dated 09.06.2026. However, the order on compliance made petitioner stands silent.
11) By placing reliance upon Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India[4] wherein the Supreme Court held that only least restrictive measure should be exercised on imposition of fundamental rights. Requirements of the doctrine of proportionality must be considered before restricting the fundamental rights. In the present case MeitY and MHA failed to adopt less restrictive measures such as taking down specific channels involving unlawful content and abuse instead of blocking application as whole and consistently complied with the directions of respondents of taking down the channels.
12) The Impugned order wrongly states that Petitioners failed their legal duties under Rule 3 (1) (b) of 2021 rules while complying all adopted and technologically feasible to curb unlawful content. The standard of compliance application to an intermediary is one of reasonable and due diligence, accordingly MeitY and MHA cannot attribute failure on mere grounds that available technology has not provided sufficient benefits.
13) Placing reliance on Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of UP[5] wherein the SC held that any restriction placed on fundamental rights should be proportionate, reasonable and strictly confined to the public interest. The Impugned order is ultra vires the 69 A of IT Act, for blocking the entire telegram and procedure prescribed under 2009 Rules requires Secretary to independently apply his mind and facts.
14) Rejoinder Submissions filed by the Petitioners and contended that government cannot use Section 69A of the IT Act to ban an entire platform held in Anuradha (supra). Telegrams have full technical support to remove unlawful content and maintain a zero-tolerance policy and compliance with Rules 2021. The emergency ban was ordered blindly without checking facts and hurting the users’ sentiments, praying for allowing petition to quash impugned and consequential final order and set aside on ground of non – application of mind.
Submissions on Behalf of Respondent
15) About 2.2 million NEET UG 2026 applicants’ prospects were directly impacted by paper leaks and automated bots on Telegram, which prompted the NTA to submit multiple complaints with the government. Instead of immediately taking drastic measures to resolve this, officials planned a calibrated meeting with Telegram to find a fair solution.
16) The government provided Telegram with a legitimate 48-hour notice and a personal hearing before the appointed Committee in accordance with stringent legislative timelines. The current court petition is virtually out of date and totally academic because the Committee later delivered a well-reasoned Final Order that addressed all of Telegram’s objections.
17) Because it makes content appear to have been uploaded far earlier than it actually was, Telegram’s message-editing feature—which enables users to alter previous messages without a clear, traditional “edited” tag—is a big source of annoyance. Channels like “NEET Mafia” (which has 18,000 followers) used this tactic as a weapon to spread false information, obtain illicit payments, and massively mislead concerned students.
18) According to Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act, “information” has a broad legal definition that includes databases, software, and codes. The government has complete legal right under Section 69A to prohibit an entire platform when it poses a widespread threat to public order, since a mobile application is ultimately just a collection of databases and code.
19) The government cites cybercrime research that shows widespread worldwide usage as evidence that a company’s financial objectives cannot take precedence above public safety. A platform cannot invoke “fundamental rights” to fight emergency legislative legislation intended to protect the public interest if its architecture makes it impossible to guarantee user responsibility.
RATIONALE
The Judgement
20) The Delhi High Court refused Telegram’s writ petition, upholding the Central Government’s interim blocking order issued on June 16, 2026, and final decision issued on June 18, 2026. The court lawfully granted a temporary platform-wide ban in India until June 22, 2026, and upheld the order to disable Telegram’s message-editing capabilities until June 30, 2026.
21) The court rejected Telegram’s assertion that Section 69A of the IT Act only permits filtering of specific individual posts or information. By interpreting Section 69A in conjunction with the broad definition of “information” under Section 2(1)(v), which includes codes, computer programs, and software, the court determined that an entire application or software-based ecosystem qualifies as “information” and can be completely blocked if certain conditions are met.
22) The platform-wide prohibition was upheld in part because smaller solutions continued to fail. Despite Telegram’s cooperation in removing specific URLs and channels, the court found that the platform’s architecture allowed operators to quickly build automated bots, rotational handles, and duplicate channels. Because of this, the phony exam-leak ecosystem was able to swiftly reposition its audience, making the removal of specific content completely useless.
23) Under the proportionality test established by Anuradha Bhasin, the court decided that maintaining the integrity of the NEET UG 2026 re-examination for 2.2 million applicants exceeded the platform’s private economic interests and the minor inconvenience to its clients. Because they were closely timed and event-linked to the inspection window, the message-editing restriction and the entire platform ban were seen as the least restrictive, important measures of last resort.
DEFECTS OF LAW
24) To ensure a fair treatment, there is no doubt that any authority make decisions by clearly reasoning it. These reasons show a direct nexus and connect between the evidence presented and final order. These reasons are key factors before reaching conclusion study your all facts and circumstances.
25) Given the emergency nature of impugned order, the court is of view that reasons supplied arriving at decision were sufficient, Respondent no 1 has strictly followed the procedural steps in compliance with 69A of IT Act and hence ground of n0on-communication cannot sustain but it blocked the whole telegram platform for the leak of examination papers related to UG, 2026. They could put ban on channels that were involved in circulating the information related to the Neet UG, 2026, also disabled message editing features for all the users who are using the platform. The platform could have been refreshed and petitioner has complied in every step and therefore the protocol must have been followed in consonance with petitioners’ team.
26) The petitioners have technological ability to resolve the issue by conducting searches and by removing the harmful and unlawful content. This court has accepted allegation at face value rather than focusing on all facts and circumstances, without any particular evidence and proportionality test.
INFERENCE
27) The narrower time period for achieving objective adheres to the timeline mentioned in the present case and upon considerations of facts and circumstances in the present case the proportionality test and its reasonableness towards restricting the fundamental rights by evaluating all the possible resort to break or remove the unlawful content and put ban over an entire platform was not the least restrictive measure to stand. Millions of users use telegram for various purpose such as educational, religious and chat. The court also found that repeated takedown measures were ineffective and through channels and chatbots again the new content was re-emerging in relation to the Neet UG, 2026.
Dhriti Sachdeva – SRM University Sonepat Delhi NCR
[1] National Testing Agency, NEET-UG 2026 Information Bulletin (National Medical Commission), NTA (Accessed June 28, 2026), nta.ac.in
[2] The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 7, Act No. 21 of 2000.
[3] The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69A Act No. 21, Acts of Parliament
[4] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
[5] Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1982) 1 SCC 39