The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Centre's stance on the ban imposed on messaging app Telegram, even as the government claimed there is 'shocking material' it will share with the court. Telegram has challenged the move to temporarily restrict access to the app ahead of the June 21 NEET-UG retest.
Government's Response and Solicitor General's Submission
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested a day's time, stating that the government has been communicating its concerns to Telegram since May. He informed the court that the blocking order was issued under Section 69A of the IT Act and that a post-decisional hearing had already been conducted, where Telegram's representatives participated before the nodal agency. A fresh order was expected.
'We shudder to imagine a situation where there is public unrest,' SG Mehta submitted before a bench of Justice Tejas Karia.
Telegram's Arguments Against the Ban
Telegram's counsel claimed the curbs were illegal and questioned the legality of the blanket order blocking the platform. Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta informed the High Court that over 150 million users had been affected. 'There are 150 million users in the country. You block everything. Article 14 is completely violated,' Telegram's counsel argued.
'All content and channels that were requested by the government have been removed,' Telegram's counsel told the court, adding that no emergency had been recorded in the government's decision to justify the ban. 'Students obtain study material through Telegram. Educators use it. Businesses use it. You have blocked everything,' the counsel pointed out, arguing that the decision to ban failed to acknowledge actions already taken by Telegram in response to government requests.
Background of the Dispute
According to Telegram, since June 1, several meetings had been held with government authorities, and whenever specific channels were identified, the platform acted upon requests for blocking them. SG Mehta, however, sought time, stating, 'If the court will hear us tomorrow, there is something shocking I can show. One channel starts, it is prohibited, and then another is started. And with a QR code, you can make a payment for questions.'
Justice Karia then sought to know if 'complete' blocking of the platform is 'proportionate'. The SG said despite repeated interventions, certain channels allegedly involved in examination-related activities continued to resurface after being blocked.
