Delhi High Court Upholds Government Block on Telegram Under Section 69A of IT Act

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Central government's order blocking the messaging app Telegram across India until 22 June. Significantly, it is the first time a court has held that an app's software itself — and not only the content posted on it — counts as information that the government can block under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The block was ordered by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on 16 June, which also disabled Telegram's message-editing feature until 30 June. The trigger was the NEET-UG re-examination scheduled for 21 June, after the original exam held on 3 May was cancelled over a paper leak. The National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts NEET, had first flagged the alleged misuse of Telegram to MeitY on 21 May; MeitY later sent the company a list of 1,300 URLs, of which the company says about 900 were disabled.

Section 69A allows the Centre to block access to information when it is necessary or expedient on grounds such as public order. The IT Act's definition of information includes data, codes, computer programmes, software and databases. The procedure is set out in the 2009 Blocking Rules, under which an emergency interim block can be issued first and then confirmed by a committee after hearing the affected party.

Justice Tejas Karia held that the order's reasons were adequate given its emergency nature, and that a later confirming order could add further reasoning. On whether blocking the entire platform — rather than specific content — was a proportionate response, the court held that Section 69A's wide definition of information, covering codes, computer programmes, software and databases, is broad enough to include an app's architecture itself. There is no reason to exclude an application or platform from that expression, the court said.

For exams, remember Section 69A of the IT Act (blocking of information), the 2009 Blocking Rules, the roles of MeitY and the NTA, and the wider free-speech and proportionality debate this case raises. The novel legal point is that software and architecture — not just content — can be blocked.