Venkataramani added: “This platform because of its unique architecture, I would probably say, it’s a Frankenstein which can lead to so many implications of crime. Public order is looming large…”The Delhi High Court on Thursday concluded arguments and reserved for judgment Telegram’s plea challenging the government’s order temporarily blocking the messaging platform across India until June 22, even as the government termed the platform as a “Frankenstein”.The government expressed apprehension that if permitted to operate before the NEET (UG) retest, scheduled on June 21, students may come out on the streets and indulge in prohibited activities, in case something goes wrong.A question repeatedly posed by Justice Tejas Karia through the nearly two-hour hearing was whether the temporary blocking order is proportional given that the order is issued by exercising powers under IT Act Section 69A, which are emergency powers.Also Read | Why Centre flagged Telegram's search feature before June 16 blocking orderJustice Karia further orally said, “You’re concerned with a sweeping order banning the app … today there are certain concerns or complaints that it is not conducive to certain exams which are to be conducted. We are all alive to the situation of what happened … without that one particular instance, can you block the entire app? To what extent can IT Act section 69A be exercised? … Has it been exercised in the circumstances which warranted that exercise? … The question here is, can you block someone else’s right (Telegram) to protect someone else’s right (students)?”Notably, while the blocking order had cited that the action is necessitated “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India” and “public order”, the government at the outset on Thursday gave up on the aspect of “sovereignty and integrity”.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “Sovereignty and integrity would be an overambitious argument, I would confine it to public order and preventing incitement to commission of cognisable offence.”Read | Telegram ban not foolproof against VPNs, but curbs NEET fraud market: NTA chiefStory continues below this adJustifying that the action taken is proportional, Mehta relied on the Anuradha Bhasin judgment of SC which dealt with blanket internet suspension in J&K in the aftermath of abrogation of Article 370, such temporary blocking is permissible.Additionally, Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the government, also submitted, “If somebody who can’t take accountability or responsibility, cannot plead proportionality. It is a unique and peculiar situation and therefore to apply proportionality indiscriminately in every specific context like this would be completely misconceived.”Different architecture ‘real problem’A pointed and oft repeated argument by the government was Telegram’s distinct architecture which makes it the “real problem”. SG Mehta argued, “The architectural design of the platform is such that they cannot prevent certain things … unlike other intermediaries like WhatsApp etc, they have certain systems in place and their architecture is different and therefore what is being done on this platform (Telegram) cannot happen on the other platforms.”Telegram reportedly disabled more than 150 bots associated with dissemination of NEET-related content. SG Mehta also added that disabling a particular bot does not necessarily disable the underlying unlawful activity, and also “conceals critical user identifiers, including phone numbers”. Additionally, Telegram permits groups of up to 2 lakh members and public channels capable of broadcasting content, thus resulting in amplified reach.Also read | Changes recommended in JEE AdvancedStory continues below this ad“We do not have this problem with other intermediaries,” SG Mehta added. Additionally, while other intermediaries retain data despite deletion of accounts, Telegram, which is completely cloud-based, does not store such data, which leads to loss of potential evidence.Venkataramani added: “This platform because of its unique architecture, I would probably say, it’s a Frankenstein which can lead to so many implications of crime. Public order is looming large…” 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:telegram