Is Telegram the New Dark Web? India's Ban

India has imposed a temporary ban on Telegram, a move prompted by its alleged misuse by cheating rackets during the NEET-UG retest. The National Testing Agency cited organized exploitation of the platform for defrauding candidates. The government further submitted to the Delhi High Court that Telegram has evolved into the 'new dark web,' becoming a preferred tool for cybercriminals, fraud networks, extremist groups, and those involved in examination paper leaks due to its architecture and privacy features.

Telegram distinguishes itself from apps like WhatsApp by not offering end-to-end encryption by default. Only 'Secret Chats' provide this security, alongside features like self-destructing accounts and anonymous forwarding. While this strong commitment to user privacy has made it a favorite among dissidents in countries like Iran, it has also created a convenient communication hub for illicit activities. Pavel Durov, Telegram's founder, was briefly arrested in Paris in August 2024 on allegations of complicity in organized crime facilitated by the app.

The messaging app's accessibility and features, such as the ability to create numerous bots per account and form large public or private groups, further enhance its appeal to cybercriminals. Unlike dark web forums, Telegram is easily accessible on any device and does not require verified personal information for account creation. Efforts to disrupt criminal activity are hampered by the platform's ability to quickly reform communities after channels are shut down.

In response to these concerns, Telegram has reportedly increased moderation efforts, blocking millions of channels and groups since August 2024. However, its inherent characteristics continue to attract illicit actors who adapt their methods. Telegram's founder has stated that the ban in India will merely shift exam leaks to other applications, noting that the platform had already removed over 900 links related to unlawful exam content.

The ban has sparked debate regarding online privacy and regulation. The Internet Freedom Foundation has labeled the shutdown a 'band-aid solution' and a disproportionate response. Concerns have been raised about the government's use of Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, questioning whether blocking an entire intermediary is appropriate and if such restrictions meet constitutional standards of necessity and proportionality. This situation raises critical questions about the future of digital platforms and the balance between regulation and online freedom.