New Delhi, Wednesday, June 17, 2026 — Telegram has filed a petition at the Delhi High Court challenging the Indian government’s temporary ban on the platform, calling the order unconstitutional and a disproportionate restriction on the free speech rights of its more than 150 million Indian users. The India Telegram ban, imposed on Tuesday ahead of a re-examination for the country’s national medical college entrance test, has ignited a sharp debate over the limits of state power to shut down digital platforms.
Telegram’s lawyers mentioned the challenge before a judge at the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, who agreed to take up the petition shortly thereafter, according to local media reports.
What Telegram Argued in Court
In its filing, Telegram described the government’s action as “unconstitutional,” a “grossly disproportionate” measure, and an “overbroad restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech of users.” The company warned that allowing the ban to stand would “enable indiscriminate suspension of digital platforms” and amount to a blanket shutdown of a service relied upon by millions.
Telegram also argued that the blocking order failed to account for the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students and educators use the platform to access study materials and communicate with coaching institutions.
The matter was mentioned on an urgent basis before a vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia by Advocate Madhav Khosla.
Why India Issued the Ban
The restriction was imposed on Tuesday under a stringent provision of India’s IT law, which empowers the government to block access to online platforms in the interest of the country’s sovereignty and integrity. The government also ordered Telegram to disable the editing feature on messages already posted.
The Central government acted on a request from the National Testing Agency, which alleged that the platform was being used by organised cheating rackets to mislead and defraud candidates appearing for the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21. Following the government’s direction, telecom operators began restricting access to the app, while its listing was removed from major app stores.
The government described the move as a measure of “last resort,” saying earlier attempts to take down content from the platform had not produced results, and that it regretted the inconvenience caused to users. The ban was set to remain in place until June 22.
Pavel Durov Challenges Effectiveness of Block
Telegram founder Pavel Durov publicly questioned whether the ban would achieve its stated objective, arguing it amounted to a punishment for the platform’s 150 million Indian viewers rather than “the insiders who leaked the exam materials.”
The NEET Scandal Behind the Ban
Last month, the government cancelled the NEET undergraduate entrance examination for medical schools after authorities discovered that examination questions had been leaked in advance. The leaks led to a series of student protests across the country, including the emergence of the satirical viral movement known as the Cockroach Janta Party, which demanded the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
The medical entrance examination is taken by 2.3 million students annually. The government subsequently scheduled a fresh sitting for June 21.
A Recurring Civil Liberties Debate
Activists have long argued that the IT law provision used to impose the India Telegram ban can be turned into a tool for curbing free speech more broadly. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has maintained that it acts in accordance with the law and in the public interest.
Telegram has grown rapidly in India, which is now its largest market by downloads, although WhatsApp remains the country’s dominant messaging platform. The scale of Telegram’s Indian user base gives the dispute an unusually high threshold: a platform with 150 million users in a single country being blocked, even temporarily and for a stated public interest purpose, raises questions that extend well beyond the exam-fraud context, touching on the legal architecture that governs state control over digital infrastructure in the world’s most populous democracy. The Delhi High Court’s decision on whether to grant interim relief is expected to be closely watched by platform operators and free-speech advocates across the region.
Published in SouthAsianDesk, June 18, 2026
Follow SouthAsianDesk on X, Instagram and Facebook for insights on business and current affairs from across South Asia.
