The company has gone to the Delhi High Court over a block tied to alleged cheating on a national medical-entrance exam, a measure affecting more than 150 million users.
Telegram has asked the Delhi High Court to overturn an Indian government order that has temporarily blocked the messaging app, the company’s most direct legal confrontation yet with one of its largest markets.
The order, in force until 22 June, was issued after the National Testing Agency alleged that organised cheating rings were using Telegram to defraud candidates sitting a re-examination for NEET-UG, India’s national medical-entrance test.
The mechanics of the block are sweeping. Telecom operators have been instructed to cut access and the app has been removed from app stores, a combination that affects more than 150 million users in India.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol' founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It's free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
The re-test is scheduled for 21 June, and the government has framed the block as a temporary, targeted measure to stop leaked exam material and related scams circulating in the days before candidates sit down.
Telegram’s objection is one of proportion. Shutting an entire platform for tens of millions of people to interdict the activity of a few cheating rings is, in the company’s view, a blunt instrument aimed at a narrow problem, and founder Pavel Durov has called the ban disproportionate.
The Delhi High Court is now being asked to weigh exactly that: whether the block is a legitimate, narrowly tailored response or an overbroad one that sweeps up lawful users to reach unlawful ones.
The argument is a familiar one for Telegram, which has spent much of its existence in disputes with governments that want either its data or its absence.
The app was blocked in Russia for two years over its refusal to hand encryption keys to the security services, a ban Moscow eventually abandoned as unworkable, and it has faced suspensions and threats from Spain to Indonesia. In several of those cases the app emerged with more users than it had before, a pattern Durov has not been shy about noting.
India is a harder case, not because the legal question is different but because the market is so large. Spain suspended its own Telegram ban to study the effect on users before it took hold; India has gone the other way, implementing first and litigating after.
The size of the affected population is part of Telegram’s argument and part of the government’s confidence that a short, sharp block is justified.
India and Telegram have history short of an outright ban, too. The government has previously ordered the platform to remove thousands of channels accused of piracy and exam-paper leaks under the country’s IT Act, the same legal machinery now being used to justify the block.
The pattern matters to the proportionality question: the state can point to repeated, narrower interventions that it says did not solve the problem, while Telegram can argue that escalating from channel takedowns to a nationwide shut-off is precisely the disproportion it objects to.
For now the timetable does the talking. The block runs until 22 June, the re-test falls on 21 June, and the High Court will decide whether the order survives in between. The case will turn on a question that long predates Telegram and will outlast it: how much of a network a state may switch off, and for how long, to stop the few who misuse it.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.