‘Telegram can backdate question papers, students will be on streets’: Centre backs ban in Delhi High Court

D Mehta: Time can't be changed. Time slot will not change. New content on 21st, you can't say that it was posted on 15th. You can edit a prior message.

SG Mehta: There is some PDF posted on 18th of June. On 21st in the evening, it would remain 18th of June, the PDF would be changed. That means that people can see that on 18th of June people had the question paper of 21st.

Bench: Timestamp remains same but message gets changed.

D Mehta: In so far as guidelines are concerned, my Lord, we are following the guidelines. There's no allegation that we are not following the guidelines...They say you're not complying with statutory obligation. They don't mention which statutory obligation. It's a generic statement that you're not complying with statutory obligation. I don't know which statutory obligation. I'm complying with the rules.

Bench: Arguments heard, judgment reserved.

Bench tells D Mehta: Natural justice is fundamental. It can't be sole basis to challenge ban order.

Bench asks D Mehta: The measures which you have deployed are not satisfactory to meet the requirement...What is your answer to those submissions?

SG Mehta: If we say that you are permanently banned because of your architectural design, maybe that is disproportionate. Maybe we say that till indefinite period you are disabled. Maybe, perhaps that is disproportionate. When it is event-based, and event-based has a logical nexus with the action which is taken. There is an object. Object is not to mislead crores and crores of students who account for the majority population of the country. And thereafter also not to ensure that people do not doubt that it was already in public domain and maybe my learned friend had got the question paper on 19th, I did not get, so he got better marks. That's not the object...Students might come on the street and do something which is prohibited under the BNS.

SG Mehta: Who takes the responsibility if something happens on this platform within these three days? I'm posing a question to myself. They are agitated and rightly at their age they will also be agitated. It may distract the student. The entire credibility of the institutional examination at a national level is brought into disrepute. That is not my immediate concern. My concern is potential law and public order issue. Telegram will not be able to, even if they say so, take the responsibility if something happens between Thursday and Sunday. They are not supposed to take responsibility.

SG Mehta: That had happened in 2024. I had appeared for NTA and the court was prima facie saying that how can that be done? Our officer went there and in the presence of the Chief Justice, he edited the date and time...You do something today, you post something today, with editing, that it was already available on 19th. Crores of students would be on the street. That is where the public order issue comes...Whenever in any other intermediary an edited content comes to us, it mentions this is edited.

They do not have. They say on 17th of June, that is yesterday, that we are in the process of doing that.

Bench: Can you block somebody else's right to protect someone else's right? The law has been laid down in Anuradha Bhasin case. So what are the factors?

SG Mehta: Anuradha Bhasin permits that but for a temporary period, for an object to be achieved and with an object in mind that something is going to happen before a particular date. Your Lordship would find network service provider like Airtel, Jio, etc, they are also intermediaries. So they can be blocked. Anuradha Basin does not prohibit blocking.

Bench: Your exercise of the right in the present circumstances, in this case was proportionate or not has to be determined.

SG Mehta: Ministry of law in a recent report said that this is going on because of the very unique nature of their architectural design which must be a very carefully created design. It's not that they have missed something...It's a very bulky report. I'm not reading it. The said report documents, I'm just giving the gist, the extensive and recurring misuse of Telegram for wide spectrum of unlawful activities including cyberattacks, purchase and sale of mule and rented bank accounts, operational and transactional cybercrime syndicates, malware distribution, data exfiltration, command and control infrastructure, circulation of violent and extremist content, dissemination of pirated content.

This is the potential. We are not using this for the purpose of impugned order. This is the potential. Then, paper leak is a simplest thing because your reach is to unidentified number of people.

SG Mehta: I have given a table showing what steps were taken by different countries against Telegram for non-compliance...Challenge posed by Telegram arises not merely from isolated instances of unlawful content but automated bot functionality, ease of creation of mirror bots and channel anonymity-enhancing features

SG Mehta: Telegram permits users to conceal critical identifiers, including their phone numbers, and communicate solely through usernames.

SG Mehta: In Telegram one account user can create 40 bots, bots are machines they are robots and not humans...that is why they say that you have multiplicity encouraging architecture

Bench: Let's have a hypothetical situation. Suppose a paper is leaked, by the time the order comes to you, the damage is done. What is your proposal? How can it be dealt with?

D Mehta: What is being alleged is that people are spreading misinformation regarding leakage of paper.

Bench: As far as your stand is concerned, you are basically concerned with a sweeping order of banning the app

D Mehta: It's not that I am sitting quietly and doing nothing

Bench: Let us focus on the issues

D Mehta: Supreme Court has in number of judgments criticised this approach that you can't recite the words of a statute like a mantra, you have to actually look at the material on record and arrive at the satisfaction.

Bench: What it seems that there have been a series of meetings and you have not been able to satisfy the requirements of urgency by complying with certain things. So now what is your take on that, were you able to satisfy the government with regard to the efforts which you have taken

D Mehta: There has to be a complete application of mind on the material placed on the record...had there been a proper consideration by the secretary with respect to the emergent nature of the power and whether it is necessary to block the platform itself

SG Mehta: Only one thing that he is not challenging the final order

D Mehta: Let me respond to that...Order suffers from a legal infirmity

Judge presides, hearing commences

Justice Tejas Karia to shortly hear Telegram's plea against temporary ban.