Telegram Ban Is a Disproportionate Response to the NEET Paper Leak Crisis

The Central government’s decision to ban Telegram till 22 June is futile, disproportionate, illegal, and ultimately bound to fail. 21 June is the date on which the re-examination of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) is scheduled to take place. The National Testing Agency (NTA) hopes that banning the messaging app will prevent another leak of the NEET question paper.Not only is such a belief a stretch of the imagination, it is also evasive because it shifts blame for the paper leak onto an app and its features instead of addressing flaws in the logistics of the examination itself.From a legal standpoint, this order is in violation of Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000—and falls foul of a line of judicial pronouncements on internet bans.'Measures of Last Resort': Telegram Blocked Amid NEET Paper Leak ConcernsIn Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the validity of the indefinite blanket ban on internet services in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.It held that the government could impose a blanket ban only if such a ban:Has a rational nexus to the objective of the banThe ban is proportionateThe ban was the least restrictive measureThe present ban fails all three tests. Firstly, in plain English, “rational nexus” means connection. Therefore, the government must establish that the ban has a direct connection to the objective it seeks to achieve. In this case, it is common sense that Telegram is not the cause of the paper leak. Therefore, banning Telegram will not necessarily prevent future leaks.The argument that the paper was leaked on Telegram, or through Telegram, does not make the platform the source of the problem.At most, Telegram was the medium through which the leak was disseminated. There is, therefore, no rational nexus between banning Telegram and preventing paper leaks.Secondly, this ban isn't proportional. Telegram CEO Pavel Durov claims that there are about 150 million users of Telegram in India. It is unclear how widespread the NEET paper leak nexus is, but by any estimate the number of users utilising Telegram to sell or purchase the leaked paper have to be a minuscule fraction of its total users.Banning the platform entirely, thus compelling all of its users to bear the consequences of the conduct of a handful, is plainly disproportionate.Thirdly, in every case where an absolute ban is imposed, it must be shown that such “blanket ban” was the least restrictive measure that could be implemented. It is clear that banning the entire app is not the least restrictive measure. Several alternative measures could have been implemented. For example, specific accounts or channels could have been blocked. Alternatively, channels with keywords such as “NEET”, “medical”, and so on could have been blocked.Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 confers the government with the power to block from public access any information only in six conditions, i.e, a threat to the sovereignty; integrity; security; or defence of India; or a threat to public order; or in order to prevent incitement of any cognisable offence relating to the above five grounds.The NEET paper leak, although it is serious, does not fall within the limited scope of Section 69A. It is a special power to be exercised in limited circumstances only, and cannot be invoked routinely, especially to compensate for weaknesses in an entrance exam body.India Promised NEET Reform After 2024. What Happened?In Shreya Singhal v Union of India, the Supreme Court was testing the constitutionality of several sections of the IT Act, including Section 69A. In its judgment, the court had upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A on the sole ground that the powers conferred under the section were narrow and to be exercised only in specific and limited circumstances. Therefore, using Section 69A to ban Telegram is a glaring abuse of the law. Invoking the section for purposes beyond those expressly contemplated by Parliament is a flagrant violation of the court’s reasoning in Shreya Singhal.The NEET paper leak crisis calls for a reconsideration of the entire framework in place for conducting the examination. Banning an app, or arresting a few accused, is far from the solution. In fact, the ban merely closes one window, while leaving several others open. Does the government intend on playing whack-a-mole across every messaging app available to users?Moreover, Telegram could have assisted the propagation of the “leaked paper” but by no means was it the cause. Telegram did not break into the NTA’s systems, access confidential materials, or remove examination papers from secure storage. It is frustrating to see a simply worded law being violated and abused. However, one cannot help but observe how routine reliance on Section 69A has normalised its use far beyond the circumstances for which it was originally designed.Through a systematic and routine abuse of Section 69A (be it banning BBC’s documentary on the Godhra riots, in 2023; blocking accounts of leaders of farmers protests, in 2021; or banning the official account of Reuters on X), the government appears to have conditioned itself to believe that anything unpleasant on the internet can be taken down through Section 69A. While it is reassuring that the government views the NEET paper leak as a matter requiring urgent action, it still appears not to have grasped the true purpose and limits of Section 69A.(Vedant Choudhary is a lawyer practicing in Delhi. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint does not endorse or is reponsible for them.)

BECOME A MEMBER

Banning Telegram is a Disproportionate Response to the NEET Paper Leak Crisis

Using Section 69A to ban Telegram is not only a violation of the provision but also a glaring abuse of the law.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: Telegram NEET