The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Telegram’s petition challenging the Central Government’s emergency blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which temporarily restricted access to the platform until the “immediate aftermath” of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination.
Upholding the government’s action, Justice Tejas Karia held that the order met the constitutional test of proportionality and fell within the Centre’s statutory powers under Section 69A.
Announcing the judgment, Justice Karia said that “accordingly, this court is of the view that respondent No. 1 was empowered under Section 69A to issue directions for blocking the public access to Telegram. We have also held that the test of proportionality has been satisfied, as the requirements, namely identification of legitimate objective, existence of a rational nexus between the objective and the measure adopted, necessity of measure in the facts and circumstances of the case, and adoption of the least restrictive measure available has been adopted.”
Court on Telegram as a “computer resource”: A key question before the Court was whether Telegram, as an application and platform, fell within the scope of Section 69A.
Addressing this issue, Justice Karia observed that “the definition of computer resource and computer makes it evident that the information generated, transmitted, received, stored, or hosted through the software-based infrastructure falls within the ambit of Section 69A of the Act. An application or platform performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions to electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses and includes input, output, processing, storage, computer software, and communication facilities connected with a computer system or computer network.”
On that basis, the Court concluded that the government possessed the authority to direct the blocking of public access to Telegram under the IT Act.
Due process followed and least restrictive measure adopted: Justice Karia held that the government had complied with the procedural requirements prescribed under Section 69A and that the emergency nature of the order justified the steps taken by the Centre.
The Court observed that “after considering all the arguments, we find that given the emergency nature of the impugned order, the reasons applied in arriving at the decision were sufficient. Respondent No. 1 has strictly followed the procedural steps as required under Section 69A of the Act.”
It further held that the government had adopted the least restrictive measure available in the circumstances. The Court stated that “accordingly, the measures adopted by Respondent No. 1 under the orders constitute least restrictive measure for achieving the stated objective. Accordingly, the action of Respondent No. 1 in temporarily blocking the public access to Telegram cannot be held to be disproportionate.”
Why does this matter? This legal…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
