India told the Delhi High Court it warned Telegram roughly two weeks before ordering a nationwide block that coincided with a high‑stakes re‑exam for medical school applicants.
The Centre’s affidavit filed June 18
The government filed an affidavit in the Delhi High Court on June 18, the news agency ANI reported. According to the filing, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology received multiple complaints that Telegram was being used in an alleged paper leak of the NEET‑UG 2026 national medical entrance exam. The National Testing Agency identified channels, groups and bots on Telegram that it said were circulating leaked material and running fraud tied to the exam.
The affidavit, as described by ANI, says the government did not immediately resort to an app ban. Officials first raised concerns directly with Telegram and organised a meeting with Telegram representatives on June 3, 2026. The government framed its initial approach as adopting the least restrictive measures rather than blocking the service outright.
Telegram’s admitted limits and the government’s account
In the affidavit the government says Telegram “acknowledged it had limited ability to detect such content proactively” and that its moderators were acting on channels reported to the platform. The filing is the government’s public record backing its claim that it had engaged Telegram before the nationwide restriction.
Telegram, for its part, has told the court it cooperated throughout and has challenged the ban as unlawful. The Delhi High Court heard Telegram’s plea and has reserved its order; the block remains in force while the court’s ruling is pending.
Cross‑border impact: BGP route leak and access disruptions
BleepingComputer reported that India’s block spilled beyond the country’s borders, disrupting Telegram access as far away as the UAE through what was described as a BGP route leak. The disruption affected users outside India while the domestic restriction was in place.
Even during the block, users were able to reach Telegram via a built‑in MTProto proxy option, a workaround detailed in related coverage.
Network attribution, Reliance claims, and public rebuttal
Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov publicly blamed an Indian telecom, Reliance, calling the event deliberate sabotage and linking it to competition with WhatsApp. Network researchers, however, read the event as a domestic block misconfigured into a global leak and noted that the autonomous system Durov cited belongs to Reliance Communications, described in the reporting as insolvent, rather than the Meta‑backed Reliance Jio.
Reliance Jio has publicly rejected Durov’s claim. In a statement on X, the company wrote: “We categorically clarify that Jio has not been involved in any such incident. Jio continues to operate its network in accordance with global Internet…” The company framed its public posture as a denial of involvement in the routing incident.
What this means for NEET candidates, Telegram users, and Indian regulators
- NEET‑UG candidates: The re‑exam is scheduled to go ahead on June 21; the block is due to lift on June 22 unless the court’s reserved ruling changes that timeline.
- Telegram users (domestic and international): Access disruptions extended beyond India to other countries via a reported BGP leak, though the app remained reachable for some users via the MTProto proxy; Telegram has challenged the ban in court and says it cooperated with authorities.
- Indian regulators and enforcement bodies: The government has placed on record that it raised concerns with Telegram, convened a June 3 meeting, and filed an affidavit on June 18 documenting the National Testing Agency’s identification of channels, groups and bots it links to the alleged leak.
The record now rests with the Delhi High Court. The government’s affidavit says it warned Telegram and recites the platform’s admission of limited proactive detection; Telegram says it cooperated and has sought to overturn the block. With the NEET‑UG re‑exam set for June 21 and a possible unblocking on June 22 unless the court rules otherwise, the next judicial decision will determine whether the restriction remains and how the routing disruption episode is legally and operationally resolved.
