The Delhi High Court is set to resume hearing on June 18, 2026 at 2:30 PM in the writ petition filed by Telegram FZ LLC challenging the Union Government’s temporary ban on Telegram in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — imposed days before the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination.
The matter is being heard before the vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia, according to the Delhi HC cause list as reported by ProKerala/IANS and LawBeat.
Background: How We Got Here
The Central Government, acting on recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Department of Higher Education, directed MeitY to restrict access to Telegram in India until June 22, 2026, under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. The restriction was timed to cover the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21, 2026, and its immediate aftermath.
A second government order directed Telegram to disable its message-editing feature in India until June 30, 2026, according to LiveLaw and Bar & Bench.
- The original NEET-UG 2026 examination was held on May 3, 2026. Allegations of widespread paper leaks and irregularities led to the ordering of a re-examination.
- The NTA alleged that Telegram channels named ‘PAPER LEAKED NEET’, ‘Re-NEET 2026’, ‘Private Mafia’, and ‘REE NEET MAFIAA’ were demanding payments from candidates in exchange for purported exam paper access, as reported by LiveLaw and ProKerala/IANS.
- Telegram stated it had proactively removed more than 900 links involving unlawful NEET-related content, deploying AI, machine learning, and manual moderation, according to Bar & Bench.
Telegram FZ LLC & Anr. filed a writ petition — Telegram FZ LLC & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. — before the Delhi High Court challenging the MeitY direction. The matter was first mentioned on June 17, 2026 before Justice Tejas Karia’s vacation bench, which allowed urgent listing, per LiveLaw.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for Telegram, with Advocate Madhav Khosla also named as appearing or mentioning the matter for the petitioner, per Bar & Bench and Tribune India.
The Ruling — Key Findings
On June 17, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia’s vacation bench issued notice to MeitY, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the NTA. The court declined to grant any interim relief to Telegram, noting that granting interim protection could amount to staying the entire blocking order.
The court’s dictated order read: “Issue notice. Notice is accepted. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned SG Tushar Mehta. Respondents are at liberty to file their reply along with all the documents.”
The respondents were directed to file their reply and supporting documents by 8 AM on June 18, 2026, with the matter relisted for resumed hearing at 2:30 PM that day, as reported by Bar & Bench and LawBeat.
Telegram’s petition argued the blocking order was disproportionate, affecting over 150 million Indian users, and that similarly situated intermediaries continued to operate without restriction — allegedly violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, according to LiveLaw.
The petition also contended that no pre-decisional hearing was granted to Telegram as mandated under Rule 8 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, even though Telegram was actively engaging with authorized agencies, per LiveLaw.
The writ petition stated: “The Impugned Order does not justify why less restrictive alternatives, such as targeted takedowns of unlawful content were inadequate, or why the entirety of the Telegram application had to be blocked from public access.”
MeitY, in its statement on the blocking direction, maintained: “The directions are a measure of last resort, taken only after intermediate remedies, including the take-down action coordinated by I4C, had been pursued.”
Reactions & What’s Next
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Central Government and opposed any interim relief, arguing that granting it would amount to allowing the writ petition at the interim stage itself, per Bar & Bench and ANI.
During the June 17 hearing, SG Mehta told the court: “If the court posts the matter tomorrow, then there is something shocking I can show” — referring to material the government intended to file by 8 AM on June 18, 2026, as reported by Medianama and LawBeat. He also submitted that “nothing will happen overnight,” which the court noted while declining interim relief.
Telegram noted on June 9, 2026 that it removed flagged content within an hour after receiving specific URLs from authorities, according to Bar & Bench. The access restriction on Telegram is set to expire on June 22, 2026, while the separate order disabling the message-editing feature runs until June 30, 2026.
With the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21 and the ban expiring on June 22, the June 18 hearing carries significant urgency. The Delhi High Court’s decision on interim relief — if any — will determine whether over 150 million Indian users regain access to Telegram before the re-examination takes place.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
Why did MeitY temporarily block Telegram in India ahead of the NEET re-exam?
MeitY issued a direction under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, acting on recommendations from the NTA and the Department of Higher Education. The NTA alleged that specific Telegram channels were selling purported NEET-UG 2026 exam papers to candidates ahead of the June 21, 2026 re-examination. The restriction was set to remain in place until June 22, 2026, according to LiveLaw and Bar & Bench.
What relief did the Delhi High Court grant to Telegram on June 17, 2026?
The Delhi High Court vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to MeitY, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the NTA but declined to grant any interim relief to Telegram. The court directed the respondents to file their reply by 8 AM on June 18, 2026, and relisted the matter for a resumed hearing at 2:30 PM on June 18, per Bar & Bench and LawBeat.
What constitutional and statutory grounds did Telegram raise in its writ petition?
Telegram argued that the blocking order violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by singling out Telegram while similarly situated intermediaries continued operating. It also cited Rule 8 of the IT Blocking Rules, 2009, contending it was not given a mandatory pre-decisional hearing before the restriction was imposed, according to LiveLaw.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
