Telegram admits it can't police exam-leak channels, India says

Key Takeaways

• India's government says Telegram admitted it lacked the ability to proactively detect exam-leak channels before the block was imposed
• The Delhi High Court has reserved its ruling on Telegram's challenge; the ban remains in force until at least June 22
• A BGP misconfiguration caused the India block to leak globally, disrupting Telegram access as far as the UAE

India's government filed an affidavit in the Delhi High Court on June 18 claiming that Telegram acknowledged it could not proactively detect channels selling leaked medical exam papers. The admission, if accurate, undercuts Telegram's argument that authorities acted disproportionately when they blocked the app nationwide ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 entrance exam.

The court has reserved its ruling on Telegram's challenge to the ban. Until that decision arrives, the block stays in place. The NEET-UG re-exam proceeds June 21, and the government has said the block will lift June 22 unless the court rules otherwise.

What does India's affidavit actually say?

According to ANI, India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology received multiple complaints about Telegram being used to circulate leaked papers for NEET-UG 2026. The National Testing Agency identified specific channels, groups, and bots running fraud tied to the exam.

The government claims it did not immediately block the app. Instead, officials contacted Telegram directly and arranged a meeting on June 3. During that meeting, the affidavit states, Telegram representatives acknowledged the platform had limited ability to detect such content proactively. Moderators were only acting on reported channels, not hunting for them.

The affidavit frames the block as a last resort after Telegram failed to contain the problem. That framing matters: proportionality is central to Indian courts evaluating internet shutdowns. If the government can show it tried less restrictive measures first, the ban becomes harder to strike down.

How did the Delhi High Court respond?

Hours after the affidavit was filed, ANI reported that the Delhi High Court reserved its order on Telegram's plea. Reserving judgment means the court has heard arguments from both sides and will issue a written ruling later. No timeline was given.

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov has called the block unlawful and accused Indian telecom Reliance of deliberate sabotage, tying it to competition with WhatsApp. That accusation gained traction on social media but ran into a factual problem: the autonomous system Durov cited belongs to the insolvent Reliance Communications, not Reliance Jio, the carrier actually connected to Meta.

What caused the global disruption?

India's block was supposed to be domestic. It wasn't. A BGP route leak pushed the block beyond India's borders, disrupting Telegram access for users as far away as the UAE. Network researchers traced the leak to a misconfiguration, not a coordinated attack.

Reliance Jio issued a public denial on X, rejecting Durov's claim outright. The company stated it had not been involved in any BGP misconfiguration and continues to operate its network according to global internet standards.

The distinction matters for Telegram's legal strategy. Framing the outage as corporate sabotage makes for better headlines than admitting a domestic block leaked due to routine misconfiguration. But courts care about evidence, and so far the technical record points to the latter.

What options do affected users have?

Users caught in the disruption can still reach Telegram through its built-in MTProto proxy feature. The workaround has been available since the block began, though it requires manual configuration. Telegram has published instructions within the app for users in affected regions.

The block is set to lift June 22 regardless of the court's timing, unless the ruling explicitly extends it. For now, Indian users and anyone caught in the BGP leak are stuck waiting.

What does this mean for Telegram's moderation model?

Telegram has long positioned itself as a hands-off platform compared to rivals. That philosophy works until a government decides the platform is failing to police specific harms. The NEET leak case puts Telegram's reactive moderation model directly in the crosshairs.

If the government's affidavit is accurate, Telegram essentially told Indian officials: we can take down channels you report, but we cannot find them ourselves. That's a significant concession. It invites regulators elsewhere to ask why Telegram should be treated differently than platforms that invest in proactive detection.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did India block Telegram before the NEET exam?

The government says channels on Telegram were selling leaked papers for the NEET-UG 2026 medical entrance exam. After direct outreach to Telegram failed to stop the leak, authorities imposed a nationwide block.

Did Telegram admit it couldn't detect exam-leak channels?

According to India's court affidavit, Telegram representatives acknowledged limited ability to proactively detect such content. Moderators were acting only on reported channels.

Why did the Telegram ban affect users outside India?

A BGP route misconfiguration caused the domestic block to leak internationally, disrupting access as far as the UAE. Network researchers attributed it to misconfiguration, not sabotage.

When will the Telegram ban in India end?

The block is scheduled to lift June 22, after the NEET-UG re-exam on June 21, unless the Delhi High Court's pending ruling changes that timeline.

Can users bypass the Telegram block?

Yes. Telegram's built-in MTProto proxy feature allows users to circumvent the block, though it requires manual setup.

Source: BleepingComputer