Delhi High Court Rejects Telegram Plea, Upholds 22 June Ban Amid NEET Security Concerns and Exam Leak Fears

Court backs Centre’s decision to restrict Telegram till 22 June ahead of NEET re-exam, citing misuse risks while hearing technical arguments and constitutional challenge

Delhi High Court rejected Telegram’s challenge against the temporary restriction imposed by the Centre.
The court upheld the government decision that extends the ban until 22 June.
Justice Tejas Karia delivered the ruling through a single bench on Friday, 19 June 2026.
Additionally, the court stated that the government’s decision cannot be termed unreasonable.

 NEET re-exam security concerns drive government’s preventive action

Earlier, NEET UG examination took place on 3 May but later faced paper leak allegations.
Consequently, nationwide protests erupted, increasing pressure on NTA and Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
Following the controversy, authorities cancelled the 3 May examination entirely.
Now, NEET re-exam stands scheduled for 22 June under strict preventive monitoring measures.

 Centre presents technical arguments citing misuse risks

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented multiple technical concerns before the court.
He explained risks of misuse of the app by wrongful elements before examinations.
Moreover, these arguments highlighted potential threats linked to information manipulation on platforms.

 Court questions proportionality of platform-wide restriction

However, the bench questioned whether restricting 15 crore users remained justified for limited exam concerns.
The court raised concerns over blocking widespread access due to a few student-related incidents.
Therefore, proportionality of the restriction became a key point during proceedings.

 Telegram challenges ban citing discrimination and constitutional violation

Telegram argued that authorities targeted its platform unfairly compared to other applications.
Additionally, it stated that other apps continued functioning without similar restrictions.
Furthermore, the platform claimed the ban violated Article 14 of the Constitution.