The Indian government’s decision to temporarily restrict Telegram and disable its message editing feature marks an unprecedented escalation in its response to the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak controversy.
Acting on recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA), the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has blocked access to the messaging platform until June 22 and ordered it to disable message editing in India until the end of the month. The measures are directly linked to the fallout from the cancellation of the NEET-UG 2026 examination, the first time the national medical entrance test has been scrapped since the NTA took over its administration in 2019.
While authorities argue the restrictions are necessary to combat organised cheating networks and the spread of fabricated “paper leak” claims, the move has raised wider questions about intermediary liability, the government’s blocking powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act), and whether the restrictions meet constitutional standards of necessity and proportionality.
IFF statement: The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) criticised the government’s action against Telegram in a statement on June 16, 2026, describing it as a “band-aid solution” that is both disproportionate and ineffective in addressing examination fraud. In a detailed statement, the organisation raised several concerns:
- Questioning the legal basis: IFF argued that Section 69A allows the blocking of specific content, not entire platforms, and questioned the legal authority for disabling Telegram’s message-editing feature.
- Arguing that less restrictive options existed: The group noted that the NTA itself credited channel, group and bot takedowns with containing the harm, suggesting targeted measures were already working.
- Highlighting inconsistencies: IFF pointed to the NTA’s statements that no paper had leaked outside the secured examination chain and that exam security remained unaffected, arguing this weakens the case for a platform-wide restriction.
- Warning of collateral impact: The organisation said the block affects lakhs of legitimate users, including students who rely on Telegram for educational purposes.
- Questioning effectiveness: IFF argued that leaks originate within the examination system and that fraud networks can easily bypass platform blocks or migrate elsewhere.
- Raising transparency concerns: The group criticised the government for not publishing the underlying MeitY order, arguing that affected parties cannot properly scrutinise or challenge the restriction.
What SFLC said: The Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) criticised the government’s decision to restrict Telegram, arguing that the measure is disproportionate and unlikely to address the underlying causes of examination paper leaks. Furthermore, it argued that Telegram is only one of many channels through which leaked material could be circulated. The organisation argued that restricting access to Telegram does not address the source of the problem and could simply push illicit activity onto alternative services.
SFLC.in highlighted Telegram’s widespread use in India and warned that the restriction would affect millions of legitimate users. The organisation also raised concerns about the impact on free expression and communications, arguing that broad platform-level restrictions risk causing significant public disruption while delivering limited benefits in preventing future leaks.
Impact on businesses: Arun Prabhudesai, founder and CEO of Armoks Media, wrote on X that Telegram functions as the “default deployment layer” for AI agents, trading bots, and automation pipelines. He argued that blocking the platform would break thousands of automated workflows used by developers and businesses across India, including his.
Similarly, startup founder Pranab Salian said his company relies on Telegram for production notifications and delivery workflow.
Meanwhile, Nikhil Pahwa, MediaNama founder and editor-in-chief, pointed out on X that entire business communities use Telegram to exchange purchase demands. He added that the platform is also the easiest in terms of deploying and using AI agents.
Furthermore, Pahwa argued that examination-related fraud could just as easily occur on WhatsApp or Discord and questioned whether blocking Telegram nationwide constitutes a proportionate response.
NEET Aspirants depend on Telegram: The restriction has also drawn criticism from students who rely on Telegram as part of their daily preparation for competitive examinations. MediaNama spoke to two NEET-UG aspirants on the condition of anonymity who said they depend on Telegram for study material, question banks, lecture videos and revision resources.
Both expressed frustration that the restriction was announced less than a week before the re-examination, saying that it will disrupt their established study routines. One student estimated that “more than half” of their study material came through Telegram groups and channels.
Is the restriction proportionate or justified? In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), the Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right and reaffirmed that restrictions on constitutional rights must satisfy tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Subsequently, in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020), the Court held that internet restrictions must be temporary, proportionate, and subject to review, while also stressing that orders should be published to enable legal challenge.
Meanwhile, in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Court upheld Section 69A of the IT Act with procedural safeguards, which are notice, hearing, access to the blocking order, and the right to appeal. Importantly, the blocking order has not yet been made public.
Also read
