Amid criticism over the Centre’s decision to temporarily restrict access to Telegram during the NEET-UG re-examination period, senior government officials have defended the move. They argued that it was aimed at preventing the spread of misinformation and curbing online extortion targeting students.
Officials alleged that Telegram is a “bad-faith actor” which failed to respond to 2,460 legal requests globally.
According to officials, the restriction is not a blanket ban but a time-bound measure tied specifically to the NEET re-exam window. The curbs are expected to be lifted on or around June 22, while concerns related to message editing will be monitored until June 30.
“The target is not ordinary users. It is the narrow window in which these scams thrive — before a high-stakes re-exam when anxious students are most vulnerable,” an official said.
Government sources claimed that Telegram channels with names such as “PAPER LEAKED NEET” and “Re-NEET 2026” were operating extortion rackets targeting nearly 22 lakh students. These channels allegedly demanded payments ranging from Rs 14,000 to Rs 25,000, with some seeking as much as Rs 10 lakh, in exchange for purported leaked papers that did not exist.
“Scammers were not merely spreading misinformation; they were running a business model built on panic. Urgency drove willingness to pay, secrecy inflated perceived value, and exam anxiety created demand,” an official said.
Rejecting criticism that the move was intended to curb free speech, officials argued that Telegram’s message editing feature had been misused to fabricate evidence of paper leaks.
“Telegram allows channel administrators to edit old messages without altering the original timestamp. A message edited on June 4 can be made to appear as if it was posted on June 1. Scammers exploited this feature to create fake ‘pre-exam proof’ of paper leaks, fuelling panic among students and parents. This was not a hypothetical risk—it was actively happening,” an official said.
Officials further maintained that conventional enforcement measures had proved ineffective.
“India attempted to take down these channels individually, but new ones surfaced faster than old ones could be removed. Telegram has no registered office in India, no grievance officer and no legal accountability mechanism under Indian law. When a platform refuses to cooperate with lawful enforcement and allows extortion networks to operate openly, the government has an obligation to act,” an official said.
