CURRENT AFFAIRS | 19 JUNE 2026
The Delhi High Court on June 19, 2026 pronounced its verdict on Telegram’s plea challenging the Centre’s temporary blocking of the messaging platform under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case sits at the heart of a classic constitutional tension: national security and public order versus free speech and the rights of digital intermediaries.
What Happened
The block, ordered until June 22, was imposed after the National Testing Agency (NTA) flagged Telegram channels running NEET-UG 2026 paper-leak scams affecting more than 22 lakh candidates; the NEET-UG re-exam is scheduled for June 21. Justice Sohini Ghosh examined whether an app-wide ban met the proportionality test under Section 69A.
Telegram argued the blanket ban was disproportionate, contending that targeted blocking of specific channels and bots was the less-restrictive alternative. The government countered that channel-by-channel blocking had failed because users simply migrated to new channels, justifying app-level action “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India and public order” under Section 69A’s emergency powers.
⚖️ Constitutional & Legal Framework
Section 69A, IT Act 2000 grants emergency blocking powers, exercised through the 2009 Blocking Rules. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A but upheld Section 69A with procedural safeguards. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) mandated that internet curbs satisfy proportionality and adopt the least restrictive means. The free-speech guarantee under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions (public order, sovereignty, security), and the four-pronged proportionality standard was crystallised in K.S. Puttaswamy.
🎯 Why This Matters for CLAT
Free speech, the proportionality doctrine and intermediary/IT law are perennial CLAT legal-reasoning anchors. The NEET paper-leak hook makes this instantly relatable to aspirants. Expect passages testing whether a restriction is the “least restrictive means” and how courts balance Article 19(1)(a) against Article 19(2) grounds.
📌 Key Facts
| Who | Delhi HC (Justice Sohini Ghosh); Telegram v. Union of India |
| What | Verdict on Telegram block under Section 69A IT Act |
| When | June 19, 2026; block ran until June 22 |
| Where | Delhi High Court |
| Key numbers | 22 lakh+ NEET candidates affected; NEET re-exam June 21 |
| Key law | Sec 69A & 2009 Rules; Shreya Singhal; Anuradha Bhasin; Art 19(1)(a)/(2) |
🧠 Memory Hook
Two cases, two jobs: “Shreya Saves 69A, Bhasin Brings Proportionality.” Shreya Singhal (2015) killed 66A but kept 69A; Anuradha Bhasin (2020) gave the proportionality + least-restrictive-means test. Remember “66 dead, 69 alive.”
Take the Quiz
Sharpen your free-speech and IT-law fundamentals with 10 CLAT-style questions.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
