The Centre defended its temporary blocking of Telegram before the Delhi High Court, alleging that the platform has effectively become the “new dark web.” It argued that cybercriminals, fraudsters, and other harmful actors increasingly exploit Telegram’s anonymity to carry out illegal activities and evade detection.
The Centre defended its decision to temporarily block Telegram before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the messaging platform has effectively transformed into what it termed the new dark web a space where cybercriminals, fraudsters and other harmful actors increasingly operate behind the shield of anonymity.
When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared before Justice Tejas Karia, he asserted that the government’s action was motivated by concerns going well beyond the continuing dispute over the NEET-UG re-examination.
The Centre maintained that Telegram’s design and privacy features have made it a preferred medium for illegal networks engaged in a wide range of wrongdoing.
The Centre’s submissions followed Telegram’s challenge to the blocking order. Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing the platform, argued that Telegram serves millions of users for lawful purposes and that a blanket restriction would disproportionately impact legitimate activity.
During the hearing, the bench highlighted the difficulty of the matter.
The bench observed,
“We are all alive to what happened, so many situations happened. But yes, the question is to curb that problem, can you ban an entire app,”
At the same time, the court noted that the statutory power invoked by the government under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act could not be contested through the writ proceedings.
In its arguments, the Centre also presented allegations of extensive misuse. Officials told the court that Telegram has allegedly become a conduit between conventional cybercrime groups and dark web networks.
The government claimed that even paper leaks are among the easiest forms of misuse to enable on the platform, while pointing to additional unlawful activity carried out through Telegram as well.
The government said,
“Telegram has become the new dark web, linking threat actors,”
According to the Centre, criminal groups have increasingly used Telegram channels to share links to hidden forums, complicating identification and investigation for law enforcement.
The government further alleged that Telegram’s privacy controls help users conceal identifying information. It acknowledged that, in the backend, each account is connected to a phone number, but officials argued that users can hide this information through Telegram’s settings.
The Centre also said cybercriminals frequently employ false identities to carry out financial scams and distribute data sets allegedly obtained through breaches. It further pointed to an increase in complaints on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal that are linked to Telegram-based fraud.
In addition, investigators alleged that closed Telegram groups are used to purchase and sell mule bank accounts, which in turn support money laundering and other cyber-enabled financial crimes. The Centre also claimed misuse involving Indian banking channels, fintech systems, UPI handles, and cryptocurrency conversion routes.
The government’s claims were not limited to economic wrongdoing. It told the court that Telegram is being used for a variety of illegal activities, including drug trafficking, cybercrime, extremism, terrorism, child exploitation, and cyber scams and fraud primarily, as the Centre argued, because of the platform’s privacy features.
Officials alleged that extremist organizations and radical groups have used Telegram channels to spread violent propaganda and misinformation intended to disturb public order. The Centre also cited the circulation of Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material (CSEAM) and accused multiple channels of distributing pirated films, web series and copyrighted content, leading to losses for creators and rights holders.
Cybersecurity concerns featured prominently in the submissions. The Centre claimed that malware developers increasingly rely on Telegram as a method of distribution, including for Malware-as-a-Service operations. Investigators reportedly cited examples of channels promoting tools intended to bypass Google Play Protect, distribute malware disguised as financial applications, and evade security protections built into banking and UPI platforms.
The government also alleged that Telegram bots are used to provide access to leaked databases containing personal information including Aadhaar details and mobile numbers which are then exploited for further cyber fraud.
The Centre told the court that it had communicated its concerns to Telegram repeatedly over several years, with discussions intensifying in recent weeks. It stated that Telegram representatives were informed that the problem had grown out of proportion and that stronger steps might follow if preventive measures were not implemented.
Officials said that for four years, Telegram had claimed improvements to its search features were under development. In recent meetings, the government proposed measures such as blocking at the device level and using hash-based systems to identify unlawful content.
Telegram, however, reportedly replied that it lacked the technical ability to implement IMEI-level interventions. The company said its moderators were actively addressing issues connected to the NEET paper leak and that it had been ingesting numbers provided by authorities.
As the matter continues, the High Court is now faced with the complex question it highlighted during the hearing: whether serious misuse can justify restrictions on an entire platform that is used by millions.