The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the ban on messaging app Telegram until June 22nd ruling that measure taken by the ‘centre are least restrictive’. Justice Tejas Karia hearing the case rejected Telegrams argument that the blocking order was disproportionate. it noted that government’s proactive measures are least restrictive and was narrowly tailored to prevent misusing of the platform during the conduct of the NEET re-examination.
“Given the emergency nature of the impugned order, the reasons supplied in arriving at the decision were sufficient. Respondent no.1 (Centre) has strictly followed the procedural steps as required under Section 69 A of the Act and the challenge in the interim order on the ground of non-communication of reasons cannot be sustained,” the court said in its order.
The Centre on Thursday defended its decision to temporarily ban Telegram app across the country until the National eligibility exam was concluded. It contended that the platform had become a key tool for organized cheating networks involved in the alleged leakage and circulation of NEET examination material.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the centre, told the court that the enterprise behind the messaging app had been repeatedly asked to proactively monitor and curb illegal and suspicious channels on the platform. However, the company failed to take any meaningful action, he added.
Appearing for Telegram- Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta stated that the government had failed to justify the use of emergency powers and had not demonstrated why specific content could not be blocked, instead of disabling access to the entire platform. “The order says it is in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India. An examination like NEET will affect the sovereignty and integrity of India? What is the application of mind?” he said.
The centre acting on Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2020, directed Telegram to block access to online information under specified circumstances. The court further ruled that the orders and the subsequent decision of the review committee were reasoned.