‘Hasn’t Stopped Anything’: Telegram CEO Pavel Durov Fires at Indian Government Over NEET Leak Ban, Challenges Order in Delhi High Court
In mid-June 2026, a temporary ban on Telegram in India sparked a sharp public confrontation between the messaging platform’s founder and CEO, Pavel Durov, and the Indian government. The restriction, imposed to curb the circulation of alleged paper leaks and exam-related scams ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination, drew fierce criticism from Durov. He accused authorities of punishing more than 150 million ordinary users while failing to stop the underlying problem. Telegram promptly moved the Delhi High Court challenging the order, only for the court to uphold the government’s action as lawful and proportionate. The episode has reignited debates over platform accountability, the limits of state power under the Information Technology Act, and the persistent challenge of safeguarding high-stakes national examinations in the digital age.
The controversy has its roots in the troubled National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate), or NEET-UG, the primary gateway for medical admissions in India. The original examination held on 3 May 2026 was cancelled after allegations of paper leaks surfaced. Similarities between a circulating “guess paper” and the actual question paper prompted the National Testing Agency (NTA) to scrap the results. A Central Bureau of Investigation probe followed, along with multiple arrests. Authorities rescheduled the exam for 21 June 2026, affecting roughly 2.2 million candidates. In the intervening weeks, organised networks allegedly used messaging platforms to sell purported leaked papers, demand payments ranging from a few thousand to several lakh rupees, and spread misinformation that risked creating panic and public order issues.
Telegram emerged as a particular focus. The NTA and other agencies identified numerous channels, groups and bots operating under names such as “PAPER LEAKED NEET,” “Re-NEET 2026,” “Private Mafia” and similar titles. These channels targeted students and parents with fraudulent offers of exam material. A distinctive feature of Telegram—the ability to edit previously posted messages, including replacing attachments while retaining the original timestamp—came under special scrutiny. Officials argued that channel administrators could post an ordinary message before the exam and later edit it to insert a question paper or related content, creating the false impression that a leak had occurred in advance. This capability, the government maintained, had been exploited in previous examination controversies to manufacture after-the-fact “evidence.”
On 16 June 2026, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued directions under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Internet service providers were ordered to block public access to Telegram and its associated URLs across India until 22 June—covering the examination day and its immediate aftermath. A separate order required the platform to disable the message-editing feature for already-posted messages until 30 June. The NTA publicly welcomed the move, stating that the measures were necessary to prevent organised fraud networks from exploiting the platform. Officials noted that earlier efforts at targeted takedowns of specific channels had proved insufficient given Telegram’s cloud-based architecture and the rapid creation of new channels.
Pavel Durov responded within hours. In a series of posts on X, the Telegram founder argued that the ban was both disproportionate and ineffective. “India’s IT ministry banned Telegram for one week because some users shared leaked exam questions. This punishes 150M+ ordinary Telegram users in India — not the insiders who leaked the exam materials,” he wrote. “And the ban hasn’t stopped anything. The leaks just moved to other apps.” Durov emphasised that Telegram had already removed hundreds of channels sharing leaked exam materials and related scams in India over the preceding weeks. The company was also working to make the “edited” label more visible to deter backdating scams. “Telegram is a force for good. Banning it — even temporarily — is a mistake,” he declared.
Durov went further, alleging that competitive interests may have played a role. He suggested that Reliance Group, in which Meta holds a partial stake, and WhatsApp may have lobbied for the restriction. He also claimed that an Indian telecom provider had disrupted Telegram’s international traffic through Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) hijacking, affecting users beyond India, including in the UAE. These claims were strongly disputed. Network researchers and industry sources attributed any wider disruption to a misconfigured domestic block rather than deliberate sabotage, noting that the autonomous system referenced belonged to the defunct Reliance Communications rather than Reliance Jio. Reliance Jio itself denied any involvement.
Telegram filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 8259/2026) challenging the blocking order. The company argued that Section 69A permitted the blocking of specific “information” rather than an entire platform, that the action violated Article 14 by singling out Telegram without a comparative assessment of other platforms, and that it was disproportionate given the impact on over 150 million legitimate users—including students, educators, businesses and ordinary citizens. Telegram maintained it had cooperated with authorities, held meetings, and used AI and machine-learning tools to take down content.
The government defended the measures robustly. It told the court that Telegram had been warned about two weeks earlier and had itself conceded difficulties in proactively detecting certain channels. Attorney General submissions described the platform’s architecture as particularly challenging to police. The Centre argued that the emergency nature of the situation—protecting the integrity of a national examination involving millions of candidates—justified temporary platform-wide action. Narrower measures such as content-specific takedowns had already been tried and found inadequate.
Justice Tejas Karia heard arguments over two days during the court’s summer vacation bench. He orally questioned whether the rights of 150 million users could be curtailed simply because one group of citizens was appearing for an examination. He also asked Telegram whether its architecture allowed for less restrictive alternatives such as real-time monitoring. On 19 June 2026, the court delivered its judgment, dismissing the petition. Justice Karia held that Section 69A empowered the government to block access not only to specific information but to an entire platform when circumstances warranted. The reasons supplied were sufficient given the emergency, due procedure had been followed, and the measures satisfied the test of proportionality as the least restrictive option available. The court specifically noted the risks posed by the message-editing feature in creating fabricated evidence of leaks and the potential for public order disruption.
The temporary ban remained in force through the re-examination on 21 June. Authorities later reported no major instances of fraudulent activity linked to the test on the restricted platform. Access to Telegram was restored after 22 June as the order expired. Existing users on certain devices had retained limited access in some cases during the block, while Google and Apple had temporarily delisted the app from their stores in compliance with the government direction.
The episode leaves several questions unresolved. For the government and examination authorities, it underscored the difficulty of containing organised cheating networks that migrate fluidly across platforms. For digital rights advocates and Telegram, it raised concerns about the ease with which broad restrictions can be imposed under Section 69A and the limited practical recourse available in urgent situations. Durov’s insistence that “the ban hasn’t stopped anything” highlighted a recurring pattern: illegal activity often simply shifts rather than disappears. Meanwhile, the court’s affirmation of the government’s power to block an entire platform, even temporarily, sets a notable precedent for future cases involving intermediary liability and public order.
As India continues to grapple with the twin challenges of ensuring exam integrity and regulating powerful global platforms, the Telegram-NEET confrontation of June 2026 stands as a vivid illustration of the tensions at play. The re-examination itself concluded without the widespread disruption many had feared, yet the underlying problems of paper leaks, digital fraud and platform governance remain firmly on the national agenda.
About The Author
