By Vedant Choudhary
The Central Government’s decision to ban the messaging application “Telegram” till 21st June, 2026 is futile, disproportionate, illegal, and is bound to fail. 21st June is the date on which the re-examination of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) is scheduled to take place. The National Testing Agency (NTA) hopes that banning Telegram will absolutely halt the NEET paper from leaking. Not only is such a belief a stretch of imagination, it is also evasive as it pushes the blame of the paper leak on an application and its features instead of finding flaws in the logistics of the examination. From a legal standpoint this order is in violation of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [IT Act], and falls foul of a line of judicial pronouncements on internet bans.
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was deciding the validity of the indefinite blanket ban on all internet services in the State of Jammu Kashmir in the erstwhile state of Jammu Kashmir. The Supreme Court held that the Government could impose a blanket ban only if such ban (i) has a rational nexus (explained below) to the objective of the ban, (ii) the ban is proportionate, and that (iii) the ban was the least restrictive measure.
The present Ban fails all three tests. In plain English “rational nexus” means connection. Therefore the Government must establish that the ban has direct connection with objective the ban is trying to achieve. In this case, it is common sense that Telegram is not the “cause” of the paper leak, and therefore, naturally banning telegram will not imply “no paper-leak”. The feeble reasoning that the paper was leaked on Telegram, or using telegram does not make it the cause of the problem. Therefore, there is no rational nexus in this ban.
This ban is not even proportional. Telegram’s Chief Executive Officer claims that there are about 150 Million users of Telegram in India. It is unclear how widespread the NEET paper leak nexus is, but by any estimate the number of users utilizing Telegram to sell/purchase the leaked paper have to be a miniscule fraction of its total users. Banning the platform entirely, thus compelling all of its users to bear the consequences of the conduct of a handful is plainly disproportionate.
Finally, in every case where an absolute ban is imposed, it must be shown that such “blanket ban” was the least restrictive measure that could be implemented. It is clear that banning the entire application is not the least restrictive measure. Several alternative measures could have been implemented. For example, specific accounts, or channels could have been blocked. Alternatively, channels with keywords such as “NEET”, “medical” etc. could have been blocked. It is impossible to accept that banning the entire application was the least restrictive measure. Therefore, clearly the present ban fails on all three tests.
Further, the present ban has been imposed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and is in clear violation of the text of Section 69A. Section 69A confers the Government with the power to block from public access any information only in six conditions, i.e., a threat to the sovereignty, integrity, security, or defence of India, or a threat to public order, or in order to prevent incitement of any cognizable offence relating to the above five grounds.
The NEET paper leak, although it is serious, does not fall within the limited scope of Section 69A. The Government has no power to introduce a ban in order to prevent NEET from leaking. Section 69A is a special power to be exercised in limited circumstances, and cannot be invoked routinely, especially in order to cover up for an ineffective examination mechanism.
In Shreya Singhal v Union of India, the Supreme Court was testing the constitutionality of several sections of the IT Act, including Section 69A. In its judgment the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A on the sole ground that the powers conferred under the Section were narrow and to be exercised only in specific, and limited circumstances. Therefore, using Section 69A to ban Telegram is a violation of the Section, and a glaring abuse of the law. Using the section for purposes other than those stipulated in the section, a flagrant violation of the Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal.
The NEET paper-leak calls for a reconsideration of the entire framework in place for conducting the examination. Banning an application, or arresting a few accused is far from the solution. Banning Telegram achieves nothing. After all, it was merely a messaging platform. The ban merely closes one window, while leaving several others open. Does the Government intend on playing whack-a-mole with every single messaging application? Telegram could have assisted the propagation of the “leaked paper” but by no means was it the cause. Telegram does not open then vault and retrieve the paper from NTA’s safe.
It is frustrating to see a simply worded law being violated and abused. However, one cannot help but sympathize with the Government on its abuse of Section 69A. Through a systematic and routine abuse of Section 69A (be it banning BBC’s documentary on the Godhra riots, in 2023; blocking accounts of leaders of Farmers Protests, in 2021; or banning the official account of Reuters on X) the Government has conditioned itself to believe that anything unpleasant on the Internet can be taken down through Section 69A.
While it is comforting to see that the Government finds the NEET paper leak unpleasant, and is desirous of taking action, it cannot be missed that the Government is yet to learn the true meaning, essence, and use of Section 69A.
(Vedant Choudhary is a lawyer practising in Delhi)
