Telegram Banned in India Over NEET Paper Leak — Reliance Communications Accused of Global BGP Hijacking in 2026
 |
India's decision to temporarily ban Telegram in June 2026 triggered one of the most explosive controversies in the country's recent tech history drawing in allegations of deliberate sabotage, a global internet routing incident, and accusations from Telegram's own CEO directed at one of India's biggest telecom operators. Here is everything you need to know about what happened, why it happened, and what it means for millions of users in India and beyond.
Why Did India Ban Telegram?
On June 16, 2026, India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology better known as MeitY invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to restrict access to Telegram across the entire country. The ban was introduced until June 22, acting on a recommendation from the National Testing Agency.
The trigger was the NEET India's National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, the largest medical entrance examination in the country, taken by millions of students every year. Leaked NEET re-examination papers were found to be circulating on Telegram, prompting the government to take immediate action against the platform. A separate order was also issued requiring Telegram to disable its message-editing feature within India until June 30.
The ban had immediate real-world consequences for millions of Indian users. Telegram stopped working, previously installed apps could not connect, and the app was removed from both the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store in India. Users who connected through a VPN or proxy were still able to access the platform, but the disruption was widespread and significant.
Pavel Durov's Bombshell Accusation
If the ban itself was controversial, what followed made it even more explosive. On June 16, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov took to X formerly Twitter and made a stunning public accusation. He alleged that Indian telecom operator Reliance was actively sabotaging access to Telegram for millions of users outside India, including in the UAE, through a technique known as BGP hijacking.
Durov claimed that the disruption appeared intentional because Reliance had ignored multiple reports about the issue. He went further, suggesting that the alleged sabotage may be part of a competitive war, pointing directly to Reliance's close relationship with Meta. Meta holds approximately a ten percent stake in Reliance Jio a $5.7 billion investment made in 2020. The two companies have also announced a joint venture to build enterprise AI solutions and a partnership to develop an AI data centre in Gujarat, making Reliance's ties to WhatsApp's parent company particularly relevant given Telegram's position as a direct competitor to WhatsApp.
To understand the controversy, it helps to understand what BGP hijacking actually means. Border Gateway Protocol BGP is the routing system that tells networks around the world how to reach each other across the internet. Think of it as the postal addressing system of the internet it determines which path data packets take as they travel from one part of the world to another.
A BGP hijack happens when a network announces ownership of IP address ranges it does not actually control. This can redirect, drop, or disrupt traffic meant for the real owner of those addresses. In Telegram's case, the allegation was that IP address ranges belonging to Telegram were being hijacked, causing traffic to be misdirected and disrupting access to the platform not just in India but in other countries as well.
What the Experts Said
Not everyone agreed with Durov's characterisation of the incident as deliberate sabotage. Several independent internet analysis experts reviewed the same technical data and reached different conclusions.
Doug Madory, Director of Internet Analysis at Kentik, confirmed that network AS18101 registered to Reliance Communications, the insolvent Anil Ambani-era operator had hijacked BGP routes belonging to Telegram. However, Madory suggested that the incident most likely stemmed from an attempt to block Telegram within India that accidentally leaked outward, rather than a deliberate effort to disrupt global access. He compared it to a 2023 incident in Iraq, where an attempt to cut Telegram domestically leaked the hijacked routes internationally.
Pranesh Prakash, a technology law and policy researcher, agreed that the incident appeared to be a misconfiguration rather than deliberate sabotage. He said plainly that he disagreed with Durov's claims and had seen zero evidence of intentional interference.
Reliance Jio the Mukesh Ambani-owned carrier that is a separate entity from Reliance Communications moved quickly to distance itself from the controversy. In a statement posted on X, Jio said it had not been involved in any routing incident and that it operated its network in accordance with global internet routing best practices and the highest standards of reliability, security, and transparency.
It is important to note that AS18101 is registered to Reliance Communications the insolvent Anil Ambani-era operator not Reliance Jio. However, analysts noted that Jio has absorbed some of Reliance Communications' spectrum and fibre assets over the years, complicating the picture.
Telegram moved the Delhi High Court to challenge the government's temporary blocking order. The court agreed to hear the matter urgently and issued notice, granting respondents time to file their reply. The Digital rights group Internet Freedom Foundation also weighed in, calling the ban a disproportionate and constitutionally incompatible response to exam fraud.
Conclusion
The Telegram ban in India and the extraordinary controversy that followed shines a spotlight on some of the most important questions in digital policy today: How should governments respond to platform misuse without punishing millions of innocent users? Where is the line between legitimate network management and deliberate sabotage? And what happens when the world's biggest tech companies and telecom operators operate in overlapping, competing ecosystems? The full answers may take time to emerge but the debate has well and truly begun.
Comments
Post a Comment