Indian court rejects appeal over ban on Telegram app

The ruling comes after India said channels on the app were selling leaked questions for undergraduate medical entrance ​exams.An Indian court has rejected an appeal by the Telegram social media app against a temporary ban.The New Delhi High Court issued the ruling on Friday after a closed-door hearing between Telegram and Indian officials, court records show. India blocked the app over allegations that it was being used to sell leaked exam questions.Recommended Stories list of 4 itemslist 1 of 4India blocks Telegram until Monday due to student exam fraud concernslist 2 of 4Telegram challenges India app ban, calls move unconstitutionallist 3 of 4Why was India’s Cockroach Janta Party founder attacked?list 4 of 4‘Don’t meddle’: Lula calls on Trump to stay out of Brazil’s electionsend of listThe ban took Telegram offline and removed it from app stores earlier this week, according to app tracking data.India’s Ministry of Information Technology said on Sunday that channels on the platform were selling undergraduate medical entrance exam questions. The ministry added that even fake questions could mislead candidates.A month ago, India cancelled the results of the test after allegations that the questions had been leaked in advance.The case has become one of the most closely watched legal clashes between a global tech company and the Indian government this year.‘One-sided and inaccurate’Delhi High Court judge Tejas Karia said the government orders banning the app were reasoned and had strictly followed legal procedure.India is Telegram’s largest market, with more than 150 million users. Founder Pavel Durov publicly criticised the ban, saying it penalised the platform’s users, even though the exam leaks had already been disseminated elsewhere.The ban followed days of private arguments, according to court filings. Indian officials told Telegram it had not acted fast enough to remove the accounts selling exam papers.Telegram rejected the Indian government’s account of the meetings in court filings, calling it “one-sided and inaccurate” and “intentionally” omitting details of the company’s proactive processes.