The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld a five-day ban on Telegram, rejecting the platform’s plea that the restriction was disproportionate and violated the rights of its 150 million Indian users. Justice Tejas Karia ruled that the government’s order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act was well-founded, citing sufficient reasons and proper procedure. The ban, which will remain in force until 22 June, was imposed after the National Testing Agency warned that organised cheating rackets were using Telegram channels to sell purported leaked question papers for the NEET-UG re-examination scheduled for 21 June. During hearings, India’s attorney general described the app’s architecture as a “Frankenstein”, pointing to its cloud-based design, the ability for a single user to create up to 40 bots, and an editing feature that allowed backdated modification of messages—all of which, the government argued, made law enforcement tracing nearly impossible.

The backdrop is a national crisis of confidence in India’s high-stakes examination system. The original NEET-UG test on 3 May was annulled after evidence emerged that a PDF of chemistry questions had circulated on a WhatsApp group before the exam. The Central Bureau of Investigation is probing the leak, which affected some 2.3 million candidates competing for roughly 60,000 medical seats. The pressure on aspirants is immense; several suicides were reported after the cancellation. In response, authorities have adopted extraordinary security measures: question papers are now prepared in a sealed Delhi facility with no electronic devices, shredded daily, and flown to test centres by the air force. The NTA also launched a verified WhatsApp broadcast channel to warn candidates of fraud, underscoring the paradox of relying on one messaging platform while blocking another.

Telegram’s founder Pavel Durov condemned the ban as a mistake that punished ordinary users while the real culprits simply migrated to other apps. The company argued it had removed hundreds of channels and responded to specific takedown requests within hours. Yet the court accepted the government’s contention that piecemeal channel removals were ineffective because operators swiftly created replacement groups and bots. Legal observers in Delhi note that the judgment sidesteps the proportionality question the judge himself raised—how curtailing the rights of 150 million people can be justified to protect a subset of exam-takers—by leaning on the emergency nature of the threat.

Viewed from Kabul, the Indian ban resonates with a parallel development in Afghanistan, where the Taliban administration this week prohibited government officials from using smartphones. The decree, issued by a military court, threatens violators with the destruction of their devices and punishment under Sharia law. Analysts in the region say the move is driven by fears of internal information leaks and the spread of protest footage, notably from Herat where demonstrations over women’s arrests turned deadly. While the Taliban’s restrictions are far more sweeping and ideologically rooted, both cases illustrate a growing willingness among South Asian governments to curtail digital communication channels in the name of order and security.

The Telegram ban is set to expire after the re-test, but the episode leaves unresolved questions. India’s use of emergency blocking powers under Section 69A, without exhausting less restrictive alternatives, may embolden future pre-emptive shutdowns. Meanwhile, the examination fraud ecosystem has demonstrated its resilience, shifting from Telegram to other encrypted platforms. As Indian authorities celebrate a short-term victory, the deeper challenge of securing meritocratic institutions in the world’s most populous nation remains as daunting as ever.