Delhi High Court upholds a temporary block on Telegram before the NEET re-exam
19 June 2026
After NEET-UG of 3 May 2026 was cancelled over alleged paper leaks, the Ministry of Electronics and IT, on the National Testing Agency's recommendation, temporarily blocked Telegram in India until 22 June, a day after the re-examination on 21 June. On 19 June 2026 Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court dismissed Telegram's challenge, holding that the government had followed Section 69A of the IT Act and its procedure, that its reasons were sufficient, and that the measure was not disproportionate. Telegram had argued that blocking specific content would have been enough.
Background. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 lets the government block public access to online information in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order and similar grounds, with reasons recorded. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) upheld Section 69A and struck down Section 66A.
Why CLAT asks: Whole-platform blocking against content-specific blocking is a proportionality question that suits a passage.
Sources: All India Radio News: Delhi High Court upholds temporary restriction on Telegram ahead of NEET-UG re-examination (19 June 2026); Bar & Bench: Delhi High Court upholds temporary ban on Telegram till June 22
Supreme Court upholds GST on the full value of online bets
27 May 2026
In Directorate General of GST Intelligence v. Gameskraft Technologies (2026 INSC 595), decided on 27 May 2026 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, the Supreme Court upheld GST at 28% on the full face value of amounts staked on real-money gaming platforms, including for past periods. The test, it held, is whether money is staked on an uncertain outcome, not whether skill is involved, so fantasy sports, rummy and poker played for stakes can be 'betting and gambling' for GST. Platforms supply the actionable claims themselves and are not mere intermediaries. The Court also affirmed the power of the State to prohibit online money gaming. The rate on such gaming was raised to 40% from 22 September 2025.
Background. GST came through the 101st Amendment (2016), with Article 246A on the power to tax and Article 279A on the GST Council. Actionable claims are outside GST except lottery, betting and gambling.
Why CLAT asks: Skill versus chance has decided gaming cases for decades; here the stake decides it.
Sources: IBFD: Supreme Court upholds retrospective GST on online gaming and gambling; Ahlawat & Associates: The house always wins: Supreme Court upholds GST on online gaming
A national hash database against child sexual abuse material
15 October 2026
Following up its 2024 judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, the Supreme Court on 15 October 2026 (2026 INSC 1149) directed the Union to build a National Hash and URL List Database of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM), each entry confirmed by at least three trained analysts. Platforms must remove matching content at once. Complying with Section 79 of the IT Act does not excuse a platform from reporting CSEAM to the police under Section 20 of the POCSO Act, and failure to do so costs it the 'safe harbour'.
Background. Section 79 of the IT Act shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content if they observe due diligence. The 2024 judgment held that viewing or storing such material can be an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act and urged the term 'CSEAM' over 'child pornography'.
Why CLAT asks: Safe harbour is conditional. Know what makes a platform lose it.
Source: Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2026 INSC 1149 (Supreme Court, 15 October 2026)
Supreme Court orders faster relief for victims of 'digital arrest' scams
4 August 2026
In its suo motu case on 'digital arrest' scams, in which fraudsters pose as police on video calls and pressure victims into transferring money, the Supreme Court on 4 August 2026 noted that complaints on the national cybercrime portal had fallen from about 1.24 lakh in 2024 to about 16,400 by mid-2026. It directed the RBI to adopt within four weeks a procedure for banks to place temporary debit holds on suspected mule accounts, and told every State to make its cybercrime coordination centre and the e-Zero FIR system work within four weeks. A committee is to consider lowering the CBI's ₹10-crore threshold and a victim-compensation framework.
Background. There is no offence called 'digital arrest': no law lets police arrest anyone over a video call. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Home Ministry runs the 1930 helpline and the reporting portal.
Why CLAT asks: Continuing mandamus, where the Court keeps a case open to supervise the executive, is a feature of Indian public-interest litigation.
Source: Supreme Court of India: order in Suo Motu W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2025, In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest (4 August 2026), as circulated by the Allahabad High Court
E-commerce rules: honest 'prior prices', labelled sponsored listings, dark-pattern audits
10 September 2026
The Department of Consumer Affairs amended the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, with effect from 1 January 2027. When a platform announces a discount it must show the 'prior price', defined as the lowest price at which the item was offered in the preceding 30 days. Sponsored listings must be clearly disclosed and search results not manipulated. Platforms must follow the 2023 dark-pattern guidelines, audit themselves every year and display a compliance certificate, and must join the National Consumer Helpline's convergence process.
Background. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 set up the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to act against unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements. The Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 list 13 such practices, including false urgency, basket sneaking and confirm-shaming.
Why CLAT asks: Unfair trade practice is a defined term in consumer law. These rules give concrete examples to reason from.
Source: PIB (Ministry of Consumer Affairs): Government amends E-Commerce Rules (10 September 2026)
FIU-IND issues notices to 15 offshore crypto platforms
9 September 2026
On 9 September 2026 the Financial Intelligence Unit-India issued notices under Section 13 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to 15 offshore virtual digital asset service providers operating in India without registering, and sought blocking of their apps and websites under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. Any provider serving Indian users, offshore or onshore, must register as a reporting entity; the obligation follows the activity, not physical presence in India.
Background. Virtual digital asset service providers were brought under the PMLA in March 2023. FIU-IND, under the Finance Ministry's Department of Revenue, receives and analyses suspicious transaction reports.
Why CLAT asks: Jurisdiction based on activity rather than presence is a useful idea for passages on regulating the internet.
Source: PIB (Ministry of Finance): FIU-IND issues notices for non-compliance to 15 VDA service providers (9 September 2026)
Supreme Court presses FSSAI on red warning labels for packaged food
10 September 2026
In a public-interest case by 3S and Our Health Society (2026 INSC 988), the Supreme Court examined FSSAI's plan for front-of-pack warnings: a red hexagon reading 'HIGH FAT', 'HIGH SUGAR', 'HIGH SALT' or 'HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE', first on products high in two or more of these, measured against ICMR-NIN's 2024 dietary guidelines. On 10 September 2026 the Court asked why only products high in two nutrients were covered first, whether red could be confused with the non-vegetarian mark, and whether the scheme should be mandatory from the start, and sought FSSAI's reply within ten days. It had earlier said the right to health is part of Article 21 and that Article 47 makes public health a primary duty of the State.
Background. FSSAI was set up under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Why CLAT asks: A Directive Principle (Article 47) used to inform a fundamental right (Article 21) is a common reasoning pattern.
Source: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 988 (Supreme Court, 10 September 2026)
