Telegram founder Pavel Durov has criticised India’s temporary restriction on the messaging platform, arguing that the move disrupted access for more than 150 million users without effectively stopping the spread of leaked examination material. The dispute emerged ahead of the rescheduled NEET-UG medical entrance examination, a high-stakes test involving hundreds of thousands of students across the country.
Durov said the restrictions failed to address the core issue because individuals sharing leaked content simply shifted to other platforms. While acknowledging that Telegram had been used to circulate examination-related material, he questioned whether blocking an entire service was a proportionate response when only a limited number of users were allegedly involved in misconduct.
Indian authorities imposed the temporary ban after concerns that Telegram channels were being used to distribute leaked question papers, fake exam content and misleading information linked to the upcoming examination. Many users reported losing access to the platform, while app store restrictions further limited availability. Officials described the measure as part of broader efforts to protect the integrity of the national testing process.
The government invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and reportedly requested that Telegram suspend its message-editing feature until June 30. Authorities believe edited messages could complicate investigations by altering timelines and making it more difficult to trace the origin of leaked content. The move reflects growing concerns about preserving digital evidence in examination-related cases.
The controversy stems from last year’s NEET-UG examination scandal, which triggered widespread protests and investigations after allegations of paper leaks and irregularities surfaced. The upcoming re-examination is scheduled for June 23, and authorities are seeking to prevent a repeat of the controversy that placed intense scrutiny on the country’s examination system.
Meanwhile, the restrictions have reignited debate over whether broad platform bans are an effective tool against online misuse. Critics argue that targeted action against specific groups or accounts would be more effective and less disruptive, while supporters maintain that temporary restrictions are necessary to safeguard major public examinations. The outcome of the upcoming test may influence future discussions on digital regulation and platform accountability.