India blocks Telegram till June 22 ahead of NEET re-exam: Why a digital rights group is calling it ‘band aid solution’?
The shutdown, which the government described as a measure of last resort, has drawn sharp criticism from the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), which argues that the order is legally overreaching, practically ineffective, and ultimately harmful to the very students it claims to protect.What Triggered the Telegram Block in IndiaThe National Testing Agency (NTA), under the Ministry of Education, announced the block “in response to the organised use of the platform by cheating rackets to defraud candidates appearing for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test 2026 re-examination scheduled on 21 June 2026.”The action follows a turbulent few weeks for India's premier medical entrance examination. Last month, the government cancelled NEET undergraduate results for approximately 2.3 million students after authorities launched investigations into allegations that question papers had been leaked before the examination.The cancellations triggered widespread protests across the country, including demonstrations organised by the viral Cockroach Janta Party, which publicly demanded the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.How India's IT Law Was Used to Justify the Telegram ShutdownThe block was issued under Section 69A of India's Information Technology Act, 2000, a provision that allows the central government to restrict access to online platforms in the interest of "sovereignty and integrity of India."Separately, the government also ordered Telegram to disable its message-editing feature for all Indian users until 30 June 2026.Technology giants Alphabet's Google and Apple both received government directives to remove the Telegram application from their respective app stores temporarily, and sources with direct knowledge of the matter confirmed they will comply.The government acknowledged that the measure would cause inconvenience, describing it as unavoidable after earlier targeted actions to remove offending content had not produced the desired results.Internet Freedom Foundation Challenges the Legal Basis of the BlockThe IFF has raised substantive objections to the decision, arguing that the government has invoked a law that does not actually permit what it has done.In a detailed statement released on Tuesday, the organisation said: “Section 69A and the Blocking Rules of 2009 framed under it allow the Government to block access to specific 'information' on a computer resource. They do not extend to switching off an entire intermediary, still less to ordering a company to redesign its product by removing a feature for a whole country.”The IFF cited the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, which upheld Section 69A precisely because its scope was narrow and governed by procedural safeguards. Extending the provision to justify a full platform shutdown, the organisation argued, stretches it well beyond its constitutional boundaries. On the separate directive regarding message-editing, the IFF noted that "the release identifies no source of power at all."Govt's Own Narrative Undermines the Case for a Blanket BlockOne of the IFF's most pointed arguments draws directly from the NTA's own press release. The foundation observed that the government simultaneously admitted that channel-level takedowns had already been working, and that no examination paper was available outside secured channels.The NTA's release acknowledged its nodal agency "has secured the prompt take-down of a substantial number of Telegram channels, groups and bots," and that this targeted work “is the reason the harm caused by these rackets has been contained to the extent it has.”The IFF argued this admission fatally weakens the rationale for a full ban: "If channel level
Discussion (0)