Forwarded from Telegram Alpha
Transcript of Court Hearing - June 18 2026 - Delhi High Court, India.
Case: Telegram vs Union of India
This is a compiled, chronological reconstruction of the court proceedings, which will be updated as and when new information becomes available.
Speakers are identified as SG = Solicitor General, J = Judge, TG = Telegram’s counsel.
This is the conversation “as it is” from the source, cleaned only for readability and dialogue formatting.
The transcript starts in next message.
Case: Telegram vs Union of India
This is a compiled, chronological reconstruction of the court proceedings, which will be updated as and when new information becomes available.
Speakers are identified as SG = Solicitor General, J = Judge, TG = Telegram’s counsel.
This is the conversation “as it is” from the source, cleaned only for readability and dialogue formatting.
The transcript starts in next message.
Forwarded from Telegram Alpha
SG: We are not saying that they were ineffective or inadequate. "The record nevertheless demonstrates recurring reappearance. ... Repeated emergence and re-emergence, all of which dodged all takedowns and bypassed all directives."
SG: Because granular filtration is technically impossible at this scale and with critical exam timelines approaching fast, blocking was the only viable mechanism as a last resort.
SG: Accordingly, the committee concluded that channel-specific measures were not effective. The exam is on Sunday.
SG: The committee does not in se see these features as unlawful. But they were used by the identified network to evade enforcement.
SG: The committee does not proceed on the assumption that all content is illegal. The measure is grounded in the demonstrated inability of narrower interventions.
SG: We have a problem that cannot be solved in their architecture and mechanism. On the other hand, I am in a position to show that it is manifestly multiplying in effect...
J: How can we stop 150 million people from communicating because of a group attending an exam?
SG: ...that something done today can affect lakhs of students. All groups and channels are operating. You will not find channels on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp.
J: That's fair, re: different platforms. Now the question is, can you block somebody else's right to protect someone?
J: Anuradha Bhasin lays down the law here.
SG: Anuradha permits that, for a temporary period, for the object to be provided. Network providers are intermediaries.
J: ISPs?
SG: Yes. Bhasin does not prohibit blocking.
J: It is getting into a law and order situation, then in general public interest. Have you examined the proportionality in the larger public good or just this particular exam issue?
SG: That's fair of them, but I will put it in a different way: when the internet is banned, only 10% of people would be miscreants likely to indulge in unlawful activity.
SG: This particular issue; the reason being multiplication and their own internal system which permits this without human endeavour. Second, it is a dangerous thing. Bear in mind...
SG: ...we have crores of students in dissatisfaction. We cannot ignore the feelings of students. Telegram has a feature called editing. Date and time editing feature. What is this feature? The 21st is the exam. On the evening of the 21st, everyone has question papers.
SG: On 21 June, they can post that particular paper, modifying the date and time to 19 June. That's an admission on their part. The posting would be done on 21 June. But the date and time of posting can be edited and shown as 18 June. Students will be on the streets.
SG: That had happened in 2024, and the court was saying, how can that be done? Our officer went there, and in the presence of the Chief Justice, he edited the date and time. That is one of the grounds which has weighed with the committee.
SG: The committee has separately considered NTA records on message editing functionality. This indicated the risk that historical posts and associated content could be modified after the fact in a manner capable of facilitating fraud.
SG: Telegram acknowledged that its services were not available and could not stop circumvention through VPN. They say on 17 June that we're in the process of making edited labels more prominent, and they say it will take time.
SG: I don't know why people prefer this. But maybe because of their own architectural design. The Rajasthan Police Special Operation Group, on May 3, reported recovery of fraudulent exam material. Ahmedabad, on the eve of interim directions, arrested a cyber fraud gang operating 8...
SG: Beyond financial fraud, operators required candidates to transmit admit cards and active WhatsApp numbers, converting from financial fraud to a personal data exfiltration scheme.
[SG quotes Pavel Durov's tweet:]
SG: Some of Durov's statements, like on backdating, were implicit admissions.
TG: In interim directions, no reference there at all.
SG: It's there.
TG: There's no reference at all. You can't just rely upon something by I4C here. How can I respond?
SG: He's responded to this report. It is this report I'm reading from.
TG: I'm talking about the impugned communications.
TG: The report is June 10. This email is June 4. How can it deal with this? See the report. This must form part of the impugned communication. You can't rely upon other material now to support your order.
J: Whether you were aware in advance, in the minutes it seems you were aware.
J: Let's focus on issues. We'll consider procedure. The second aspect is whether your architecture is such that less aggressive measures meet the requirement. We'd like to hear what these issues are so that less aggressive measures, and a less intrusive order, can be considered.
J: Karnataka High Court said that under Section 69A, the order need not be detailed so long as material to back it up is on file. I'm sure you have seen that. You're focusing on procedural non-application of mind.
TG: Procedure apart, on the architectural aspect: please see page 88. On each point, I say what the point raised is, and answer that.
TG: Point 3: Telegram keeps taking action, so and so. This is what they record. My clarification is that this was misrepresented in the minutes.
TG: We use hash-based detection. We have it. We have human moderation and other technical measures.
[Quotes from the order again.]
J: You need to deal with action taken by them.
J: Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. Anything any party wants to submit, submit by 7pm IST.
SG: Because granular filtration is technically impossible at this scale and with critical exam timelines approaching fast, blocking was the only viable mechanism as a last resort.
SG: Accordingly, the committee concluded that channel-specific measures were not effective. The exam is on Sunday.
SG: The committee does not in se see these features as unlawful. But they were used by the identified network to evade enforcement.
SG: The committee does not proceed on the assumption that all content is illegal. The measure is grounded in the demonstrated inability of narrower interventions.
SG: We have a problem that cannot be solved in their architecture and mechanism. On the other hand, I am in a position to show that it is manifestly multiplying in effect...
J: How can we stop 150 million people from communicating because of a group attending an exam?
SG: ...that something done today can affect lakhs of students. All groups and channels are operating. You will not find channels on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp.
J: That's fair, re: different platforms. Now the question is, can you block somebody else's right to protect someone?
J: Anuradha Bhasin lays down the law here.
SG: Anuradha permits that, for a temporary period, for the object to be provided. Network providers are intermediaries.
J: ISPs?
SG: Yes. Bhasin does not prohibit blocking.
J: It is getting into a law and order situation, then in general public interest. Have you examined the proportionality in the larger public good or just this particular exam issue?
SG: That's fair of them, but I will put it in a different way: when the internet is banned, only 10% of people would be miscreants likely to indulge in unlawful activity.
SG: This particular issue; the reason being multiplication and their own internal system which permits this without human endeavour. Second, it is a dangerous thing. Bear in mind...
SG: ...we have crores of students in dissatisfaction. We cannot ignore the feelings of students. Telegram has a feature called editing. Date and time editing feature. What is this feature? The 21st is the exam. On the evening of the 21st, everyone has question papers.
SG: On 21 June, they can post that particular paper, modifying the date and time to 19 June. That's an admission on their part. The posting would be done on 21 June. But the date and time of posting can be edited and shown as 18 June. Students will be on the streets.
SG: That had happened in 2024, and the court was saying, how can that be done? Our officer went there, and in the presence of the Chief Justice, he edited the date and time. That is one of the grounds which has weighed with the committee.
SG: The committee has separately considered NTA records on message editing functionality. This indicated the risk that historical posts and associated content could be modified after the fact in a manner capable of facilitating fraud.
SG: Telegram acknowledged that its services were not available and could not stop circumvention through VPN. They say on 17 June that we're in the process of making edited labels more prominent, and they say it will take time.
SG: I don't know why people prefer this. But maybe because of their own architectural design. The Rajasthan Police Special Operation Group, on May 3, reported recovery of fraudulent exam material. Ahmedabad, on the eve of interim directions, arrested a cyber fraud gang operating 8...
SG: Beyond financial fraud, operators required candidates to transmit admit cards and active WhatsApp numbers, converting from financial fraud to a personal data exfiltration scheme.
[SG quotes Pavel Durov's tweet:]
"Over the past few weeks, we removed hundreds of channels sharing leaked exam materials and related scams in India. We're also making the 'edited' label more visible to prevent backdating scams. Telegram is a force for good. Banning it, even temporarily, is a mistake."
SG: Some of Durov's statements, like on backdating, were implicit admissions.
TG: In interim directions, no reference there at all.
SG: It's there.
TG: There's no reference at all. You can't just rely upon something by I4C here. How can I respond?
SG: He's responded to this report. It is this report I'm reading from.
TG: I'm talking about the impugned communications.
TG: The report is June 10. This email is June 4. How can it deal with this? See the report. This must form part of the impugned communication. You can't rely upon other material now to support your order.
J: Whether you were aware in advance, in the minutes it seems you were aware.
J: Let's focus on issues. We'll consider procedure. The second aspect is whether your architecture is such that less aggressive measures meet the requirement. We'd like to hear what these issues are so that less aggressive measures, and a less intrusive order, can be considered.
J: Karnataka High Court said that under Section 69A, the order need not be detailed so long as material to back it up is on file. I'm sure you have seen that. You're focusing on procedural non-application of mind.
TG: Procedure apart, on the architectural aspect: please see page 88. On each point, I say what the point raised is, and answer that.
TG: Point 3: Telegram keeps taking action, so and so. This is what they record. My clarification is that this was misrepresented in the minutes.
TG: We use hash-based detection. We have it. We have human moderation and other technical measures.
[Quotes from the order again.]
J: You need to deal with action taken by them.
J: Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. Anything any party wants to submit, submit by 7pm IST.
❤1