Telegram Evolved into ‘New Dark Web,’ Centre Claims in Delhi High Court Amid Surge in Cybercrime Complaints
The Union government has characterized the messaging platform Telegram as the “new dark web,” citing its architecture and privacy features as enablers for cybercriminals, fraud networks, extremist groups, and individuals involved in examination paper leaks. This assertion was made during a hearing at the Delhi High Court on June 18, 2026, regarding a proposed temporary ban on the platform until June 22, 2026, under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Government’s Position on Cybercrime
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, stated that Telegram has become a favored medium for illicit activities. He referred to an assessment from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), which identified Telegram as an emerging hub for online criminal activity. Despite repeated requests for Telegram to actively monitor and eliminate illegal channels, Mehta indicated that the company has not taken adequate measures.
Mehta remarked, “Telegram has become the new dark web, linking threat actors. Criminals have rapidly adopted Telegram to post links on channels that connect to dark web forums through deep web links, making it hard for authorities to track and attribute criminals.”
Allegations of Criminal Coordination
The Centre’s affidavit detailed how Telegram is allegedly used by cybercriminals to coordinate attacks, distribute malware, and facilitate financial crimes. It is claimed that Telegram channels function as marketplaces for rented and mule bank accounts, often employed in money laundering and cyber fraud. These channels enable criminals to exchange sensitive information, including bank accounts and cryptocurrency conversion mechanisms, complicating law enforcement efforts due to the swift emergence of new channels.
Mehta noted, “The entire population of a channel, around a lakh, can be moved to another channel in seconds. This is unique to Telegram and poses a serious risk.”
Rising Cybercrime Complaints
The government’s argument is supported by a notable increase in cybercrime complaints associated with Telegram. Data presented to the court indicated that complaints on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal involving Telegram surged from 75,688 in 2023 to 275,000 in 2025, with reported fraud exceeding ₹3,000 crore that year. By May 2026, over 88,000 complaints had already been recorded.
Mehta highlighted the platform’s unique capabilities, stating, “In Telegram, one account can create 40 bots. In WhatsApp, it’s one bot per user,” emphasizing the cloud infrastructure that complicates tracking of criminal activities.
Extremist Content and Global Context
The Centre has also linked Telegram to the dissemination of extremist content. The court was informed that channels associated with radical groups utilize the platform to spread propaganda, misinformation, and materials aimed at destabilizing public order. Mehta pointed out that other countries have taken action against Telegram for similar reasons, providing a list of such instances.
Judicial Scrutiny of Government Actions
Justice Tejas Kataria, presiding over the case, scrutinized the government’s rationale for imposing a blanket restriction on the platform while acknowledging the serious concerns surrounding examination malpractice and cybercrime. He questioned, “How can we stop the rights of 150 million people just because one set of citizens are appearing in examinations?”
In response, Mehta argued that during riots, internet services were suspended in areas where only a minority were miscreants, suggesting that such measures are sometimes necessary for maintaining law and order. He cited a specific incident from 2024, where a question paper was allegedly leaked on Telegram after the exam, leading to public protests.
Defense from Telegram
Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing Telegram, contended that the government had not adequately justified its use of emergency powers. He argued that the government failed to demonstrate why specific content could not be blocked instead of disabling access to the entire platform. He questioned, “The order says it is in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India. An examination like NEET will affect the sovereignty and integrity of India? What is the application of mind?”
The Bench acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations regarding examination leaks, and the judgment has been reserved.
Source: cyberwarriorsmiddleeast.com
For ongoing coverage and breaking updates, visit our Latest News section.
Published on 2026-06-20 10:25:00 • By the Editorial Desk
