The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in Telegram's challenge to government action taken against the platform, after questioning whether issues in its architecture had led authorities to invoke emergency powers.
Court Questions Platform Architecture
During the hearing, the Bench told Telegram that it appeared the company was aware of structural concerns related to its platform. The court said the key question was whether those concerns justified the use of emergency powers by the authorities.
"What is troubling is the question that your architecture was not sufficient and that is why emergency powers were required," the Bench observed.
Centre Defends Action on Public Order Grounds
The Centre defended its action, arguing that the matter involved public order concerns linked to alleged examination-related activities on the platform. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the potential harm was significant as it affected the credibility of national-level examinations.
"Students are agitated and understandably so. The entire credibility of an exam at the national level is brought into disrepute," he told the court.
The Centre said the restriction was temporary and reflected due application of mind. Referring to the order's validity till June 30, Mehta said the limited duration showed careful consideration before action was taken. Attorney General R Venkataramani also supported the government's stand and said preventive action was necessary in such situations. The government further argued that no action had been taken against other intermediaries as they had stronger filtering systems.
Telegram's Arguments Against Government Action
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Telegram, challenged the government's reliance on material that was not part of the original communication issued to the platform. He argued that authorities could not later rely on additional material to justify the order.
Telegram also questioned the allegations regarding message editing and backdating. Mehta argued that while messages could be edited, the original timestamp would not change.
"The timestamp will not change. If you post on June 21, you can't say that it was posted on June 15," he submitted.
The Solicitor General responded that even if timestamps remained unchanged, content such as PDF files could be altered and misused.
Telegram further said it was being accused of not complying with statutory obligations without clarity on which provisions were violated. "We are complying with the rules," Mehta told the court.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Bench reserved its judgment.
