IT Act Section 69A empowers the government to block access to “information” through any “computer resource” as an emergency measure, say if sovereignty and integrity of a country is threatened.Upholding the Centre’s order directing temporary blocking of message application Telegram until June 22, ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination this Sunday, the Delhi High Court said Friday that the government is “empowered” to issue emergency blocking directions to not only individual users, but also platforms or applications like Telegram.Dismissing Telegram’s plea challenging the June 16 blocking order, Justice Tejas Karia held the government action to be proportionate and the “least restrictive measure” for achieving the objective of potential misuse of the platform ahead of the NEET-UG retest on June 21, and preventing potential public order implications.“The temporary blocking of Telegram under the Orders is operative only until 22.06.2026, while the disabling of the message-editing feature is confined to the period until 30.06.2026. The limited temporal scope of these measures demonstrates that they are narrowly tailored and confined to the period strictly necessary for securing the stated objective,” Justice Karia said.Also Read | Delhi High Court questions Centre’s Telegram ban; reserves verdictThe High Court also took into consideration the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s June 16 and June 18 orders that entity-specific actions, including reporting and removal of channels, groups, bots and accounts were “repeatedly found to be ineffective and inadequate”.Weighing the blocking action through the lens of whether the objective to prevent misuse of the platform outweighed the ability of 150 million users in India to access the platform for lawful purposes, Justice Karia held it to be a proportionate measure, taking into account the platform’s unique architecture, which made it susceptible to platforming widespread dissemination of misinformation.The temporary blocking order, issued by MeitY on June 16, and also confirmed by a review committee on June 18, was in exercise of the government’s powers under the Information Technology (IT) Act section 69A and its associated Rules.Also Read | Why Centre flagged Telegram's search feature before June 16 blocking orderIT Act Section 69A empowers the government to block access to “information” through any “computer resource” as an emergency measure, say if sovereignty and integrity of a country is threatened.Story continues below this adWhile Telegram had argued that such power can be exercised only with respect to “specific information” and cannot be construed to imply “a blanket restriction on an entire intermediary platform”, the High Court disagreed.Justice Karia said the legislative intent was that “the expression “information” is required to be construed expansively”, and thus “there is no reason to exclude an application or platform from the ambit of the said expression”.“An application or platform, in its ordinary and commonly understood sense, is a computer programme or software designed to perform specified functions for an end user. In view of the express inclusion of “codes”, “computer programmes” and “software” within the definition of “information” under Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act, there is no reason to exclude an application or platform from the ambit of the said expression,” he said.Also read | Changes recommended in JEE AdvancedAlso relying on the definitions of “computer resource” and “computer” under the Act, he held that the same makes “it evident that information generated, transmitted, received, stored, or hosted through such software-based infrastructure falls within the ambit of Section 69A of the IT Act.”Story continues below this ad“An application or platform performs logical, arithmetic and memory functions through electronic, magnetic or optical impulses, and includes input, output, processing, storage, computer software and communication facilities connected with a computer system or computer network. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that (the government) was empowered under Section 69A of the IT Act to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram,” the High Court ruled.Read | Telegram ban not foolproof against VPNs, but curbs NEET fraud market: NTA chiefIt declined to interfere with the MeitY’s temporary blocking order on the ground that there was application of mind while taking the decision, even though Telegram had asserted otherwise, and due process was followed.The High Court noted that the temporary blocking order disclosed reasons why it was taking this measure: to prevent “potential grave implications for public order in the country and for preventing the commission of cognisable offences arising from circulation of examination-related misinformation and purported examination papers on Telegram, particularly in light of prior incidents relating to NEET-UG 2026.” Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More Tags:delhi high courttelegram