The Delhi High Court maintained the Central government's authority under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to restrict a whole intermediary platform, not just particular content published on it, while rejecting Telegram's petition to the temporary blocking of its platform. According to vacation judge Justice Tejas Karia, an application or software platform is included in the broad definition of "information" under Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act, which includes "codes," "computer programmes," and "software."

"The blocking power under Section 69A of the IT Act extends beyond individual pieces of content," the court has decided. In response to worries about paper leaks prior to the NEET re-exam, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued an emergency order under Section 69A that blocked Telegram in India till June 22.

Telegram claimed to have taken proactive steps to address illegal content on the network, including removing links to illegal NEET-related content and using AI and machine learning capabilities.

The messaging platform said that the appointed officer only "parroted" the accusations, that the Center had not applied its mind, and that no independent satisfaction had been documented. The Court rejected these arguments, ruling that non-application of mind did not affect the emergency blocking order. It noted that the statutory procedure under Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules had been followed, and that the temporary decision gave enough reasons given its emergency character.

The Court further concluded that the subsequent final ruling, which was issued following Telegram's hearing, was in line with the statutory framework that permits post-decisional hearings in emergency situations and provided additional justification for the blockage. It noted,

"The petitioners' argument that the reasons stated in the contested order cannot be replaced or supplemented by the final order is incorrect. This argument runs counter to the framework of Section 69A of the IT Act read with the 2009 Rules, which allows for the issuance of an interim blocking directive in emergency situations like the current one, provided that the Secretary of Respondent No. 1 is satisfied that the conditions outlined in Section 69A of the IT Act are met. 
Before a final order is issued that either confirms or revokes the interim blocking direction, the intermediary must be given a postdecisional hearing. In these situations, the petitioners' argument that specific justifications should have been included in the contested order before a hearing opportunity was granted is unfounded.

The Court dismissed Telegram's argument that Section 69A is limited to censoring specific posts or communications. It noted,

"In its common and everyday sense, an application or platform is a computer program or software created to carry out specific tasks for a user. There is no justification for excluding an application or platform from the definition of "information" given the explicit inclusion of "codes," "computer programs," and "software" in Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act."

The Court further ruled that the temporary platform-wide blocking met the proportionality requirement of the constitution. It mentioned that the administration had first tried less stringent tactics by repeatedly ordering the removal of specific accounts and channels. However, according to information presented to the authorities, channel-specific enforcement was ineffectual since offending entities kept reappearing through mirror channels, backup channels, bots, and cycled handles.

The Court determined that the Center's decision was appropriate, pointing out that about 2.2 million candidates were slated to take the NEET re-exam.

Case Title: TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS