Messaging platform Telegram has sought quashing of the Centre’s June 16 interim order directing the blocking of the Telegram application till June 22, suspension of its message-editing feature till June 30, and blocking of access through internet service providers and app stores on the grounds that it was arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of natural justice.In its petition before the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, the company argued that the order amounted to a blanket shutdown of a platform with more than 150 million users in India, while the government’s concerns related to alleged circulation of unlawful NEET-related content by a subset of users.It contended that authorities bypassed the mandatory hearing requirement under Rule 8 of the Blocking Rules by invoking emergency powers under Rule 9, even though discussions between Telegram and government agencies had been underway since May 20.“It is most respectfully submitted that in a scenario where an intermediary is taking both proactive and reactive measures, and responding nearly instantly to complaints by governmental authorities, blocking the entire Telegram application is neither a necessary, nor expedient measure. The Impugned Order exceeds the threshold of discretion conferred under Section 69A of the IT Act, and is therefore ultra vires the said provision,” the petitioner argued.A key plank of Telegram’s challenge was that Section 69A empowered the government to block specific “information” and not an entire platform. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Shreya Singhal and Anuradha Bhasin, the company argued that restrictions on online speech had to be narrowly tailored, proportionate and based on the least restrictive means available. The petition said the order unlawfully blocked both permissible and impermissible speech, affecting the constitutional rights of millions of users who relied on Telegram for lawful purposes. It further argued that citizens had a right not only to express themselves, but also to receive information, and that a complete shutdown of Telegram infringed both aspects of Article 19(1)(a).In support of its case, Telegram detailed a series of moderation and compliance measures that it said had already been implemented. The company said it prohibited examination fraud, paper leaks, impersonation and other unlawful activities under its terms of service, and employed proactive moderation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning tools, hash-based detection systems and human review. It said it maintained user-reporting systems, anti-spam mechanisms, “Block and Report” tools, visible “SCAM” and “FAKE” labels, and enforcement measures ranging from content removal and channel restrictions to permanent bans. Telegram also pointed to its dedicated 24x7 law-enforcement support channel and ongoing cooperation with Indian authorities.Referring to a June 5 clarification sent to the government, Telegram said it had explained that examination-fraud content was often contextual and, therefore, more difficult to identify than categories such as child sexual abuse material, but maintained that it nevertheless employed extensive AI/ML-assisted detection, hash-based detection, human moderation and user-reporting mechanisms. It also argued that outright blocking of keywords would be inappropriate because many such terms were used in legitimate contexts by students, educational institutions, media organisations and news reports. Telegram said lakhs of students used the platform for lawful educational purposes.The petition stated that Telegram had acted promptly whenever specific URLs were shared by the government. On June 9, it allegedly informed authorities within an hour that the first set of reported links had already been removed and similarly acted on a second set of URLs the same day. It also said it had proactively disabled more than 900 NEET-related URLs, channels, groups, bots and accounts found to be violating its terms of service.Published on June 17, 2026