The Delhi High Court has reserved its decision concerning Telegram’s petition challenging the temporary ban imposed on the messaging platform in India. The ban was instituted due to allegations of misuse during the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) re-examinations. The hearing addressed various legal arguments, including those pertaining to the Information Technology Act and the fundamental rights of users.
Background of the Case
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, issuing an order to block Telegram until June 22. This decision was based on concerns that the platform was facilitating organized cheating networks during the NEET-UG exams, leading to the cancellation of the original examination due to widespread paper leaks.
Key Arguments Presented
Justice Tejas Karia questioned the Central government’s counsel on the rationale behind restricting the rights of 150 million users because a subset might misuse the platform. The Court also inquired whether the government’s actions were proportionate and if the Secretary of MEITY had properly applied his mind when issuing the blocking order.
Representing Telegram, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the blocking order was unjustified and not appropriately considered. He highlighted that the order claimed to protect India’s sovereignty and integrity, which seemed disproportionate to the context of the NEET-UG exam.
Government’s Standpoint
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, argued that the temporary ban was the least restrictive measure to prevent paper leaks, emphasizing the unique architecture of Telegram which allegedly facilitated misuse more than other platforms. He pointed out that Telegram’s structure allows for a single user to create multiple bots, complicating moderation efforts.
More Read
The Solicitor General further contended that Telegram’s privacy policy, which deletes all data upon account deletion, poses challenges in tracking misuse. He also noted that Telegram’s platform is reportedly preferred for illicit activities, including terrorism, across various jurisdictions.
Telegram’s Defense and Concerns
Telegram’s legal representation argued that the platform had been unfairly singled out, while other social media intermediaries faced no such restrictions. Citing Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, the petition contended that blocking the entire platform due to misuse by a few undermines constitutional protections of free speech and information access.
The company asserted that it had taken significant steps to address government concerns, including removing over 900 links related to unlawful NEET content and employing AI, machine learning, and manual moderation to curb violations. Telegram’s efforts also included prompt action on flagged URLs, with content being removed within an hour of notification.
Court’s Considerations
The Court, led by Justice Karia, deliberated on the proportionality of the government’s actions and the fundamental rights of Telegram’s users. The Court also raised hypothetical scenarios to understand the platform’s control measures against potential misuse.
In response to the government’s arguments, Dhruv Mehta clarified that Telegram had addressed the structural issues raised and that the platform was compliant with legal norms. He also refuted claims about the editing feature, explaining that while messages can be edited, the timestamp remains unalterable post-publication.
The Court will now deliberate on the arguments presented by both sides before delivering its judgment on the matter.
