Telegram ban: ‘How can we stop the rights of 150 million?’ — What Delhi HC said

Delhi High Court Holds Off Ruling on Telegram’s Challenge to Social Media Ban

Theindiapostdaily.com – The Delhi High Court postponed its decision on a legal challenge filed by Telegram against the government’s decision to temporarily suspend the messaging app ahead of the 21 June NEET-UG re-examination. A vacation bench, led by Justice Tejas Karia, conducted the hearing after reviewing arguments from both sides. Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta represented Telegram, while Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Centre’s position.

During the session on 18 June, Justice Karia posed a critical question to the government’s counsel, emphasizing the scale of the impact. “How could the government restrict the rights of 150 million people simply because a group of examinees are facing an exam?” he asked, as reported by Bar and Bench. The judge directed both parties to submit written submissions by 7 PM, setting the stage for further deliberation.

Context of the Suspension

The ban was enforced before the 21 June date, when millions of students were set to retake the NEET-UG examination. This followed the cancellation of the May test due to allegations of paper leaks, which sparked nationwide controversy. The National Testing Agency (NTA), which administers the NEET-UG exams, issued a three-page notice that outlined the suspension of Telegram and the disabling of message editing features until 30 June.

Key Constitutional Arguments

Telegram’s writ petition claims the government unfairly targeted it compared to other social media platforms, violating the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The court clarified that Section 79 of the IT Act imposes an independent duty on intermediaries, distinct from Section 69A, which allows for blocking content. It reiterated that Section 79 shields platforms from liability for third-party data, as long as they fulfill their obligations.

“You are required to perform due diligence under Section 79 of the IT Act. This is an independent obligation, not linked to Section 69A,” the court stated, citing Live Law.

The bench then examined the government’s authority under Section 69A, questioning whether the blocking order was proportionate and if it infringed on users’ fundamental rights. “Is the power exercised appropriately? Is there a balance between the action and the harm caused? You claim 150 million users are affected,” the judge noted, as per Bar and Bench.

Exploring Proportionality

Justice Karia highlighted the need for proportionality, suggesting that blocking the entire platform might be excessive. “To prevent one incident, can the government shut down Telegram? What about the broader implications for users?” he asked, reflecting on the court’s focus on the rationale behind the ban.

The court also emphasized that as a major social media intermediary, Telegram carries additional responsibilities under the IT Rules. “The fundamental right to freedom of speech belongs to the users, not the platform itself,” the judge added, referencing a prior ruling by the Karnataka High Court.

Hypothetical Scenario

Testing the logic of the case, the court proposed a hypothetical: “Imagine a test paper is leaked. By the time the order reaches you, the damage is already done. What would your plan be?” Mehta responded, explaining that the issue was the spread of misinformation about paper leaks and the collection of money, not the actual exam content.

“The paper alleged to be on the platform isn’t the real one. How would users know the difference until the exams begin?” Mehta argued, as per Bar and Bench.

The hearing concluded with the court stating, “All arguments have been heard. The judgment is reserved. Any additional submissions must be filed by 7 PM,” ensuring the process remains open for further input from both parties.