The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Centre's decision to temporarily block Telegram, ruling that the government is empowered under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to restrict access not just to specific content but also to an entire application or platform when circumstances warrant such action.
Court's Interpretation of Section 69A
Section 69A authorises the government to block public access to any 'information' through a computer resource in the interests of sovereignty, national security, public order and related concerns, subject to prescribed procedures and recorded reasons. Non-compliance with such directions can attract imprisonment of up to seven years along with a fine.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Tejas Karia held that there was no basis to exclude a digital application or platform from the scope of the term 'information' as defined under Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act.
The court said the definition of 'information' had been deliberately framed in broad terms and must be interpreted expansively in light of evolving technology. Limiting the expression only to individual accounts, posts, messages, images or files would significantly narrow the reach of Section 69A and undermine the very purpose of the provision.
'The breadth of the said definition indicates that the expression 'information' is required to be construed expansively. A restrictive construction, confining the expression only to individual user accounts, channels, images, posts, files or messages, will unduly narrow the scope of Section 69A and may render the provision otiose. The legislative intent, therefore, appears to be to confer a broad and technologically neutral meaning upon the expression 'information',' the court observed.
Referring to the definition of 'computer resource' under the IT Act, the court further held that information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted through software-based infrastructure squarely fell within the ambit of Section 69A.
An application or platform, the court noted, performed logical, arithmetic and memory functions through electronic, magnetic or optical impulses and included software, storage, processing and communication facilities connected to a computer system or network.
'Accordingly, this court is of the view that Respondent No. 1 was empowered under Section 69A of the IT Act to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram,' Justice Karia concluded.
Arguments and Context
The ruling assumes significance as Telegram had argued that Section 69A only permitted the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block access to specific 'information' and did not confer a blanket power to shut down an entire social media intermediary. The Centre, however, maintained that the statutory definition of 'information' was wide enough to cover digital platforms themselves.
In its detailed judgment, the court also upheld the temporary suspension of Telegram services in India till June 22 and the disabling of its message-editing feature till June 30, holding that both measures were proportionate and aimed at preventing misinformation and criminal activity linked to the NEET-UG 2026 examination.
Telegram's Architecture and Concerns
The court took note of Telegram's architecture, observing that its channels, groups, bots, cloud-based storage and username-driven anonymity enabled information to spread rapidly and on a massive scale.
It warned that unlawful content on such platforms could quickly trigger public order concerns and found that targeting individual channels or bots would not have effectively addressed the problem, as operators could simply create mirror channels and shift subscribers within minutes.
The Bench further observed that the message-editing feature could potentially be misused to retrospectively alter messages and create a false impression that examination papers had been leaked before the test.
'Therefore, it is evident that narrower measures, including the takedown of specific bots and channels, were ineffective having regard to the particular nature and architecture of the Telegram platform,' the court said.
Telegram's Equality Argument Rejected
Telegram had argued that it had been selectively targeted while other social media platforms continued to operate without similar restrictions, amounting to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court, however, dismissed this contention, emphasizing the unique risks posed by Telegram's features in the context of the NEET re-exam controversy.
