India blocks Telegram till June 22 ahead of NEET re-exam: Why a digital rights group is calling it ‘band aid solution’?

India moved on Tuesday to block the popular messaging platform Telegram until 22 June 2026, citing its exploitation by organised cheating networks ahead of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) undergraduate re-examination, scheduled for 21 June. 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 India

The 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 Shutdown

The 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 Block

The 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 Block

One 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 takedown contained the harm, the case for a blanket block collapses and hence the Government has reached for a heavier tool while conceding that a lighter one was working.”

Further, the government’s own statement noted that “there is ‘no such paper available outside the secured examination chain'” and that “the security of the examination is unaffected by the action taken.” The IFF concluded: “If the exam is secure and no leak exists, what is being suppressed is rumour, and rumour cannot justify closing a platform when specific blocking and criminal prosecution remain available.”

How the Block Harms Students Preparing for the NEET Re-examination

Beyond the constitutional objections, the IFF raised practical concerns about the timing and reach of the ban, arguing it directly damages the interests of NEET aspirants.

“This blocking comes in the final days of NEET preparation, when thousands of students depend on Telegram for study groups, doubt-clearing, and shared resources,” the organisation said.

It further noted that the structural source of examination leaks lies elsewhere entirely: “the source of exam papers leak will occur from inside the system, among insiders and across the printing and logistics chain, with the platform being the most downstream channel for distribution. Hence, switching off Telegram, is merely a deflection from the repeated failures that will continue while media attention is directed towards this Telegram ban.”

The block, in its technical form, is also easily circumvented. The IFF noted that internet service-level DNS and IP filtering is “over inclusive, sweeping in lawful use, yet simple to evade as a determined exam leak racket moves to a VPN or a mirror within minutes while ordinary users lose the service for a week.”

Lack of Transparency in the Government’s Blocking Order

The IFF also raised serious concerns about procedural transparency, citing the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, which established that orders restricting access must be published so they can be subjected to judicial scrutiny.

“At present only a press release from the NTA has been provided, which recommended the block but the reasoned order of MeitY, the authority that issued it, has not been released,” the foundation noted. “An announcement of a block is no substitute for an order the affected party can challenge.”

The organisation said it remained unclear whether Telegram had been given a hearing under the Blocking Rules at all.

What the Internet Freedom Foundation Is Demanding

In its statement, the IFF outlined four specific demands directed at the government:

The organisation asked the government to publish the MeitY Section 69A order and the NTA recommendation behind it, with reasons; to state the legal basis for the message-editing directive, or withdraw it; to confirm whether Telegram was given a hearing under the Blocking Rules and to place the committee’s record before any court that hears a challenge; and to lift the platform-wide restriction in favour of the targeted takedowns the NTA itself credited with containing the harm.

“Shutting down Telegram is a band aid solution and is a disproportionate answer to exam fraud,” the IFF said.

The foundation added: “The State cannot switch off a service used by lakhs to answer the wrongdoing of a few, and cannot do it through an order no one affected is allowed to read. On its own facts, the Government has done both.”

Telegram’s Response and Current Status in India

As of 08:30 GMT on Tuesday (16 June), the Telegram application was still functioning in India.

The NEET undergraduate re-examination is scheduled for 21 June 2026. The Telegram block is in effect until 22 June 2026.