Questioning whether the rights of 15 crore users could be curtailed to safeguard an examination, the Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on Telegram’s challenge to the Centre’s decision to block the messaging platform till June 22 ahead of the NEET-UG re-examination.During the hearing, Justice Tejas Karia posed a pointed question to the Centre asking how could the rights of 15 crore people be restricted merely because a section of citizens was appearing for an examination?The proceedings saw an intense debate over the limits of the government’s emergency powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, with the court examining whether the blocking order met the constitutional test of proportionality and whether the action unnecessarily affected crores of users.At the outset, the Bench identified the core issues raised by Telegram, whether the situation warranted emergency action, whether specific content rather than the entire platform could have been blocked, and whether the order reflected proper application of mind by the authorities.Appearing for Telegram, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the Centre had resorted to the most extreme measure available without adequately considering less restrictive alternatives. He questioned the government’s reliance on grounds such as “sovereignty and integrity of India” while issuing the blocking order and contended that concerns relating to an examination could not automatically justify invoking such powers.The court, however, did not spare Telegram either. Justice Karia repeatedly questioned the platform on whether it had adequately addressed concerns raised by the government during a series of meetings held before the blocking order was issued. The Bench also observed that Telegram, as a significant social media intermediary, carries additional responsibilities under the Information Technology Rules.The judge noted that while everyone was conscious of the damage caused by alleged paper leaks and the anxiety faced by students, the real issue was whether the government could shut down an entire platform to deal with a specific threat.The Centre defended the move, arguing that the order was necessary to protect the integrity of a national-level examination and prevent large-scale public unrest.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that communications from the National Testing Agency and assessments by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre pointed to a wider pattern of misuse. According to him, Telegram’s architecture was fundamentally different from other intermediaries and enabled activities that were difficult to detect and control.The government argued that Telegram’s design allegedly permitted extensive use of bots and privacy features that made it particularly vulnerable to misuse during high-stakes examinations. It maintained that the restriction was the least intrusive measure available in the circumstances and, therefore, satisfied the requirement of proportionality.The Centre further argued that controversies surrounding examination leaks had the potential to trigger widespread public anger and undermine confidence in competitive examinations conducted for lakhs of students.Attorney General R Venkataramani also defended the order, arguing that preventive action was necessary given the risks posed by the platform’s architecture.Telegram, on the other hand, disputed several of the government’s technical allegations and maintained that it had cooperated with authorities, attended multiple meetings and responded to concerns raised by various agencies. The company also challenged claims regarding message editing and timestamp manipulation, saying users could not backdate messages in the manner suggested by the government.In its petition, Telegram has contended that it was unfairly singled out while other social media platforms continued to operate without restrictions. It has argued that misuse by a limited group of users could not become a ground for blocking an entire platform and warned that such a precedent could open the door to sweeping restrictions on digital communication platforms.