Telegram contests India's directive to temporarily suspend the app.

      The company has approached the Delhi High Court regarding a block related to alleged cheating on a national medical entrance examination, which impacts over 150 million users. Telegram has requested that the Delhi High Court revoke an Indian government order that has temporarily barred the messaging app, marking the company's most significant legal challenge in one of its largest markets.

      This order, effective until June 22, was issued following allegations from the National Testing Agency that organized cheating networks were utilizing Telegram to deceive candidates taking a re-examination for NEET-UG, India’s national medical entrance test.

      The nature of the block is extensive. Telecom operators have been directed to terminate access, and the app has been removed from app stores, affecting more than 150 million users in India.

      The retest is set for June 21, and the government has positioned the block as a temporary, targeted action to prevent the circulation of leaked exam materials and associated scams in the days preceding the examination.

      Telegram's main objection concerns proportionality. In the company’s view, shutting down an entire platform used by millions to address the actions of a few cheating rings is an excessively broad approach to a specific issue, with founder Pavel Durov labeling the ban as disproportionate.

      The Delhi High Court is now tasked with evaluating whether the block constitutes a legitimate and precisely focused response or an overly broad action that unintentionally involves lawful users in efforts to target unlawful ones.

      This argument is a recurring theme for Telegram, which has often found itself in disputes with governments seeking either its user data or its removal. The app faced a two-year block in Russia for refusing to provide encryption keys to the security services, a restriction that Moscow ultimately deemed unworkable. Additionally, it has encountered suspensions and threats from Spain to Indonesia. In several instances, the app has gained more users than it had previously, a trend Durov has not hesitated to highlight.

      India presents a more complex case, not due to a different legal question, but because of its vast market. Spain suspended its own Telegram ban to evaluate its impact on users before its enforcement; conversely, India has opted for immediate implementation followed by litigation.

      The scale of the affected population forms a part of Telegram’s argument, as well as the government’s belief that a brief, decisive block is warranted.

      India has a history with Telegram that falls short of a complete ban. Previously, the government demanded the removal of thousands of channels accused of piracy and exam-paper leaks under the country’s IT Act, the same legal framework being used to justify the current block.

      This history is relevant to the proportionality debate: the state can refer to previous, narrower measures it claims did not resolve the issue, while Telegram can contend that escalating from the removal of channels to a nationwide shutdown exemplifies the disproportion they contest.

      As it stands, the timeline is crucial. The block is set to last until June 22, the re-test is on June 21, and the High Court will determine the order's fate in the interim. The case will revolve around a question that predates Telegram and will continue beyond it: how much of a network a state can deactivate, and for what duration, to curtail misuse by a small number of individuals.