Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a vacation bench led by Justice Tejas Karia that the government possessed “substantial material” supporting its temporary restriction of messaging platform Telegram and that there was “something shocking” in the evidence that the government will file in their reply by 8 AM on June 18, 2026. Mehta argued that authorities had been dealing with complaints against the platform since May.
Telegram, which has challenged the order through a writ petition, sought interim protection against the restriction, arguing that the Centre had unlawfully blocked the entire platform under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. However, Justice Tejas Karia allowed the government to file its reply and supporting documents on June 18 and listed the matter for further hearing at 2:30 PM today.
The Centre restricted the platform till the “immediate aftermath” of the NEET re-examination, citing the circulation of examination papers and misleading claims of paper leaks originating from the platform. However, Telegram argued that the government blocked the platform despite cooperation.
Order suffers from arbitrariness and exceeds Section 69A powers: Telegram’s counsel argued that the blocking order was ultra vires the statute meaning it went beyond the powers of the rules, and reflected a “complete non-application of mind.” He contended that Section 69A authorises the government to block specific information, channels, or content, not an entire platform. In response, Mehta argued that “any information can include all information,” suggesting that Section 69A could permit broader blocking measures depending on the circumstances. Notably, the government previously used Section 69A to block multiple chinese apps in 2020
Referring to lists of channels and content previously flagged by authorities to the platform, counsel argued that Telegram had acted on each request and that the government’s order failed to consider those actions into account.
Furthermore, He said the Secretary had effectively abdicated his statutory responsibility by merely accepting the designated officer’s findings without independently evaluating Telegram’s responses. Counsel argued that the government had suddenly invoked emergency powers despite ongoing engagement between Telegram and the authorities.
Telegram says it proactively acted on government requests: Telegram’s counsel told the court that authorities had supplied lists of channels and content through two notices, and that Telegram had acted on both before receiving the notices. Referring to meeting records and written responses, counsel argued that Telegram had explained the steps it had taken and that those measures were absent from the blocking order. He said Telegram prohibited the use of its services for examination-related fraud under its terms of service.
Counsel further submitted that the company had proactively reviewed content using “a robust combination of advanced AI and human moderation” and had continuously evolved its moderation processes.
Impact on users and constitutional concerns: Telegram also argued that the blocking order had sweeping consequences for legitimate users. Counsel told the court that the platform serves around 150 million users in India, including businesses, educators, and students who rely on it for communication and distribution of study material. He described the order as a “serious intrusion into fundamental rights” and argued that it violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
According to Telegram, the blanket restriction disproportionately affected lawful users who had no connection to the allegedly unlawful activity cited by the government. Article 14 guarantees the fundamental right to equality, while Article 19 protects several freedoms, including freedom of speech and expression and the right to engage in any trade or business.
Also read:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。