Image: IANS
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Centre’s stand on the ban imposed on messaging app Telegram even as the govt claimed there is “shocking material” which it will share with court. Telegram has challenged the move to temporarily restrict access to the app ahead of the June 21 NEET-UG retest. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta sought a day’s time and said govt has been communicating its concerns to Telegram since May. Telegram’s counsel claimed the curbs were illegal and questioned the legality of the blanket order blocking the platform. Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta informed HC that over 150 million users had been affected. SG Mehta said the blocking order had been issued under Sec 69A of IT Act and that a post-decisional hearing had already been conducted where Telegram’s representatives participated before the nodal agency, and a fresh order was expected. We shudder to imagine a situation where there is public unrest,” SG Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Justice Tejas Karia. “There are 150 million users in the country. You block everything. Article 14 is completely violated,” Telegram’s counsel Mehta said. “All content and channels that were requested by the govt have been removed,” Telegram’s counsel told the court, adding that no emergency has been recorded in govt’s decision to justify the ban.”Students obtain study material through Telegram. Educators use it. Businesses use it. You have blocked everything,” the counsel pointed out, arguing the decision to ban failed to acknowledge actions already taken by Telegram in response to govt requests.According to Telegram, since June 1 several meetings had been held with govt authorities, and whenever specific channels were identified, the platform acted upon requests for blocking them. SG Mehta, however, sought time. “If the court will hear us tomorrow, there is something shocking I can show. One channel starts, it is prohibited, and then another is started. And with a QR code, you can make a payment for questions.” Justice Karia then sought to know if “complete” blocking of the platform is “proportionate”. The SG said despite repeated interventions, certain channels allegedly involved in examination-related activities continued to resurface after being blocked.
