Prateek Tanmay
5 min readJun 17, 2026 04:35 PM IST
First published on: Jun 17, 2026 at 04:35 PM IST
On June 16, the Ministry for Electronics and Information Technology issued directions to block access to the communications application Telegram till June 22. The directions come five days before the NEET re-exam, which is scheduled for June 21, seeking to limit any further controversy over the much-fraught test. A press release issued by the National Testing Agency, the government authority charged with conducting national competitive exams like the NEET, indicated that there were several Telegram channels selling purportedly leaked copies of the re-exam. The NTA indicated that these were fraudulent, and the blocking orders were issued to safeguard students and families. The orders also required Telegram to disable its message-editing feature, so no one could insert a copy of the real exam in any group chats after the exam was over — ostensibly to mitigate any chaos that would ensue if claims relied on such posts stating that the papers had leaked once again.
Consequently, the government justifies blocking Telegram on the grounds of public order. The Indian Constitution only permits the restriction of communications or speech under the grounds explicitly listed in Article 19(2). Maintaining public order, which the Supreme Court defines as preventing a state of disorder that affects the community or public at large, is one of those grounds. It is often invoked to limit access to communications in situations of tumult, most frequently in the form of an internet shutdown. An internet shutdown is when the state deliberately cuts off access to digital communications services. A report by Access Now indicates that in 2025, India experienced 65 internet shutdowns, the second-most of all nations globally. According to the report, these shutdowns were typically implemented in response to situations of conflict, protests, or political instability.
The reliance on public order as a ground for limiting communications — whether through internet shutdowns or the temporary blocking of Telegram — suggests that the state sees a causal link between access to communications, the issue at hand, and the potential for wider disorder. Indeed, the ban on Telegram seems to indicate that the state determines the application itself to be the source of the issue regarding the integrity of the NEET, rather than a symptom of deeper institutional malaise.
Several contradictions emerge from such a line of thinking. First, situations of public disorder tend to be temporary. Even in conflict-ridden areas, the courts have held that the state is not at liberty to withhold access to communications indefinitely. However, national entrance examinations recur. The NEET examination will be held again next year, and other national examinations will also be conducted. If there is a general belief that access to services like Telegram creates a challenge for examination integrity, will they be banned every time there is an entrance test or exam? Given that online messaging serves as the core informational architecture, for businesses and citizens, how will such repeated suspensions be reconciled with the broader commitments to economic participation? If the Telegram ban is a precedent, is every public examination going to be treated as a moment of crisis deserving of a complete dismantling of the information ecosystem?
Second, online communications are remarkably agile. The same information that is available on Telegram today can reappear elsewhere tomorrow. Even if Telegram really is the source of the problem, if access to it is restricted, channels for disseminating the same information will crop up elsewhere. Blocking Telegram solves nothing in such a scenario.
As our lives become increasingly intertwined with the digital world, access to online communications becomes increasingly vital. The Constitution permits the state to restrict access to communications on the ground of public order, but there are several caveats to the exercise of such powers. The action must be legitimate and necessary. It is also incumbent on authorities to consider whether alternative measures to solve the problem at hand exist, and if they do, the action taken must be the least restrictive alternative. However, it is open to question whether the temporary Telegram ban solves any of the problems regarding the integrity of NEET, or the surrounding problems of fraudulent claims about leaked copies of the re-examination paper.
More broadly, however, the precedent it sets is problematic because legitimate communications on Telegram, and other digital applications, are coterminous with potentially illegitimate ones. Commitment to a constitutional order, which requires restrictions on communications as a response to institutional challenges to be the exception and not the rule, is not only about the preservation of rights. It is closely tied to preserving vital parts of our economic life that are interwoven with the online world. Breaking away from constitutional commitments through abrupt disruptions to communications only serves up a recipe for disorder.
The writer is the director of the Esya Centre, a tech-policy think tank. Views are personal
