The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Center and other authorities on a petition filed by messaging platform Telegram challenging the government’s decision to ban the app till June 22, a day after the NEET re-examination scheduled for June 21.
A bench of Justice Tejas Karia granted liberty to the Center and other respondents to file their replies with supporting documents and posted the matter for further hearing at 2:30 pm on June 18.
Seeking time to record the material, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the government has strong evidence regarding the alleged misuse of the platform.
Read also | Banning Telegram will not solve the larger digital governance problem
He added: “This did not happen overnight. We have been dealing with them since May. We have been receiving complaints since May.”
The government said that despite repeated interventions, some channels allegedly involved in exam-related activities continued to resurface after they were blocked. Mehta said that there is a lot of material proving the misuse of the platform, and said that the government will justify the activation of emergency powers with facts and figures. He repeatedly told the court that the material available to the government was “shocking.”
Telegram says all orders were followed and yet faced a ban
While appearing on Telegram, senior advocate Dhruv Mehta asserted that the government’s order was too broad and disproportionate.
“Just because some things are bad, you can’t ban the entire platform,” he said.
Read also | Telegram opposes the temporary ban in India: “You should also close malls and block roads”
Mehta also stated that Telegram had been complying with government directives since June 1 and questioned the urgency of the ban imposed on June 16.
“They wrote me an email. Within an hour, I responded and informed them of the action taken. So, where is the reason I did not act? I acted in good faith. Proactive measures were taken. What is an emergency? This has been going on since June 1. And suddenly on June 16, I did,” he was quoted as saying by the Bar & Bench newspaper.
Questioning the basis of the blocking order, he added: “My problem is that the impugned order is devoid of any reason… My view is that while the reply is being filed, there should be an interim order. Blocking the platform may not be sustainable in law.”
Explaining how the paper leaks were facilitated through Telegram, the Solicitor General told the court: “I have to show the individual information and the individual user IDs. They were contacted repeatedly and told that these are problems and that you are patching your system. But they failed to do so. I have given examples and shared with them. There are many channels. What is being shown and what is being circulated is that if you give me this large amount, I will give you 5 questions. And this continues.”
(With inputs from Annie)
