New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that Telegram’s platform architecture makes it one of the most convenient platforms for terrorist and other unlawful activities. The observations were made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during a hearing on Telegram’s challenge to the temporary ban imposed by the government ahead of the NEET UG 2026 re-examination.
The temporary restriction, which remains in effect until June 22, was introduced as a precautionary measure to prevent the spread of misinformation and curb potential examination-related malpractice before the re-test scheduled for June 21.
During the proceedings, the Centre defended its decision and highlighted what it described as structural features of the messaging platform that create enforcement challenges for authorities.
Centre raises concerns over Telegram’s architecture
Appearing on behalf of the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Telegram’s design and technical framework have long posed concerns for regulatory and law enforcement agencies.
According to Mehta, the platform has been identified as a preferred medium for various unlawful activities because of the way it is structured. However, he clarified before the court that the present case was not directly related to allegations concerning terrorism.
He stated that Telegram has encountered regulatory and enforcement challenges in several jurisdictions due to its underlying architecture and operational features.
The Centre maintained that the concerns extend beyond a single issue and relate to the broader manner in which content can be shared and amplified on the platform.
Bot ecosystem under scrutiny
A major focus of the Centre’s argument was Telegram’s extensive bot infrastructure.
According to Mehta, Telegram’s ecosystem allows automated bots to redirect users to mirror channels and alternative groups with minimal friction. The government argued that this capability enables the rapid circulation of content across large networks in a short period.
The Solicitor General said such features can make it difficult for authorities to trace the origin of content or effectively control its spread once it begins circulating on the platform.
The Centre contended that these technological capabilities have the potential to facilitate large-scale dissemination of material that may violate laws or regulations.
Concerns over anonymity and file sharing
The government also highlighted Telegram’s use of usernames rather than mandatory identifiable credentials as another area of concern.
According to the Centre, the ability to interact through usernames can create additional challenges for law enforcement agencies attempting to identify individuals involved in unlawful activities.
In addition, Mehta pointed to the platform’s large-volume file-sharing capabilities, which allow users to distribute substantial amounts of data quickly across groups and channels.
The government argued that when combined with Telegram’s bot ecosystem, these features create an environment that can be exploited for activities ranging from the circulation of leaked examination material to the dissemination of extremist propaganda and other unlawful content.
NEET examination concerns cited
The hearing took place against the backdrop of the NEET UG 2026 re-examination scheduled for June 21.
The Centre informed the court that the temporary ban was introduced to prevent the spread of misinformation and reduce the possibility of examination-related irregularities. Authorities expressed concerns that leaked papers, rumours and misleading information could spread rapidly through digital platforms in the run-up to the examination.
According to the government’s affidavit, the temporary restriction was aimed at protecting the integrity of the examination process and ensuring a fair environment for candidates appearing for the re-test.
The ban is currently scheduled to remain in force until June 22.
Telegram challenges temporary restriction
Telegram has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the temporary suspension imposed by the government.
The company has sought relief against the order, arguing its position before the court. During the hearing, both sides presented their arguments regarding the legality and necessity of the restriction.
While Telegram questioned the justification for the temporary ban, the Centre defended the measure as a proportionate response to concerns surrounding examination security and public interest.
The matter has attracted considerable attention because it raises broader questions about the balance between digital platform operations, public safety concerns and regulatory oversight.
Court reserves its judgment
Following the hearing, the Delhi High Court reserved its judgment in the matter.
The court is expected to decide whether the government’s temporary restriction was justified under the circumstances and whether Telegram’s challenge merits relief.
The outcome could have wider implications for how digital platforms are regulated during sensitive public events, including competitive examinations and other situations where authorities seek to prevent the rapid spread of misinformation.
As governments worldwide grapple with challenges posed by encrypted messaging services and large-scale digital communication networks, the case is likely to be closely watched by legal experts, technology companies and policymakers alike.
The judgment will also contribute to ongoing discussions about platform accountability, user privacy and the responsibilities of technology companies in addressing potential misuse of their services.