FanzizFanziz
Geopolitics

Centre defends temporary ban on Telegram; China's island strategy returns again, more

The Indian government defended its decision to temporarily restrict access to messaging app Telegram before the Delhi High Court.

By Aarav MehtaPublished 2 Min Read
Centre defends temporary ban on Telegram; China's island strategy returns again, more
Centre defends temporary ban on Telegram; China's island strategy returns again, more
Advertisement

Full story

The Indian government has defended a temporary restriction on the messaging application Telegram before the Delhi High Court. Officials labeled the platform as a hub for organized crime, terror-related content, and exam fraud.

According to reports from India Today published on June 19, 2026, at 23:55 IST, the restriction was imposed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. The action followed a leak of papers for the NEET UG examination.

Officials argued that Telegram's cloud-based architecture and anonymous features enable the widespread distribution of illegal content. In response to these allegations, Telegram has challenged the ban in court, asserting that the measure is unconstitutional.

Government Defense

The Centre maintained its position regarding the temporary nature of the order. The government stated that the specific features of the application facilitate mass distribution of unlawful material.

Legal Basis and Context

The legal framework cited for the restriction is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which allows for blocking public access to information generated, transmitted or stored in electronic form under certain conditions. The specific trigger for this instance was identified as the leakage of examination materials.

Opposing Response

Telegram has filed a challenge against the ban. Representatives from the platform have characterized the restriction as unconstitutional and an infringement on user rights, though no further details regarding their legal arguments were provided in the available source context beyond this assertion of unconstitutionality.