From India to Iran: Why is Telegram banned, blocked or restricted across the world?

The messaging platform, Telegram, founded by Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov, has grown into one of the world's largest communication networks, attracting more than one billion users across continents.

To users, Telegram represents one of the last major platforms committed to privacy, resistance to censorship, and protection of free expression.

Political dissidents, activists, journalists, and opposition groups in numerous countries have relied on the application to communicate, organise, and share information outside government-controlled channels.

To critics, however, Telegram has become a platform where insufficient moderation and limited cooperation with authorities have allowed criminal enterprises, misinformation campaigns, fraud operations, extremist networks, and illegal marketplaces to flourish.

The latest chapter in Telegram's long-running battle with governments unfolded in India when authorities imposed temporary restrictions on the application following concerns linked to the Neet-UG re-examination process.

More from Explainers

‘Mythos’ and ‘Fable’ deliver a reality check: India needs AI sovereignty and supply-chain resilience

From India and China to Iran, Russia, Brazil, Pakistan, and beyond, Telegram has repeatedly found itself caught between governments seeking greater oversight and a company that has historically resisted such demands.

Why Telegram is different from most messaging apps

Many of Telegram's controversies stem from the way the platform is designed. Unlike traditional messaging applications that primarily focus on private conversations between individuals or small groups, Telegram combines messaging functions with large-scale broadcasting capabilities.

Public channels can attract an unlimited number of subscribers, while private groups can accommodate up to 200,000 members.

These features effectively transform Telegram into a hybrid platform that combines elements of private messaging, social networking, publishing, and mass communication.

As a result, information can spread rapidly across enormous audiences. While this infrastructure has enabled activists and independent voices to reach people directly, critics argue that it has also created opportunities for misinformation, copyright violations, financial scams, organised criminal activity, and coordinated disinformation campaigns.

Telegram's approach to content moderation has only invited scrutiny. The platform has traditionally embraced a philosophy that prioritises privacy and minimises intervention.

Over the years, the company has frequently resisted requests from governments and law enforcement agencies seeking user information or demanding content removal.

Supporters regard this stance as a necessary defence against censorship and political repression. Opponents argue that the same policy can hinder investigations into criminal activity and allow harmful content to remain accessible.

Contrary to a widespread perception among users, standard Telegram conversations are not protected by end-to-end encryption by default. Ordinary chats are stored on Telegram's cloud infrastructure, while end-to-end encryption is available only through the platform's optional "Secret Chats" feature.

Because Telegram retains access to cloud-stored communications, governments have often argued that the company possesses information that could assist investigations but chooses not to cooperate. This disagreement has become a recurring source of friction in multiple countries.

India's latest confrontation with Telegram

India's relationship with Telegram has been complicated for years, largely because of the platform's enormous popularity.

The country represents Telegram's largest market by downloads, with more than 150 million users relying on the application for communication, content distribution, education-related discussions, business activities, and community engagement.

However, tensions escalated dramatically in this month when Indian authorities imposed temporary restrictions on the platform.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), acting on recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA), ordered a nationwide block on Telegram until June 22.

The decision was linked to the controversy surrounding the Neet-UG 2026 medical entrance examination, one of India's most competitive tests and an examination taken by more than 2.3 million students.

The controversy emerged after allegations of question paper leaks forced authorities to cancel the original examination conducted in May. A fresh examination was scheduled for June 21, but investigators subsequently identified what they described as organised cheating networks operating through Telegram.

According to findings cited by authorities, several Telegram channels were allegedly offering access to leaked question papers in exchange for money.

Some channels reportedly operated under names such as "Private Mafia" and "Re-NEET 2026." Investigators alleged that students were asked to pay amounts ranging from a few thousand rupees to several lakh rupees in return for purported examination materials.

Authorities also directed Telegram to disable its message-editing function across India until June 30. Officials argued that fraudsters had discovered a way to misuse the feature.

According to investigators, individuals would post generic messages before an examination and subsequently edit those messages after the test had concluded, inserting actual questions from the completed paper.

Because Telegram preserved the original timestamp, scammers could falsely claim they had access to the questions beforehand. Authorities believed this tactic was being used to create the appearance of advance access to examination material, thereby deceiving students and generating panic.

As part of the action, Telegram was ordered to be removed from both Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store in India.

Telegram founder Pavel Durov criticised the restrictions, arguing that they unfairly affected millions of ordinary users. Writing on X, Durov said the move "punishes 150M+ ordinary users" and that the "leaks just moved to other apps."

He also alleged that some telecom companies had engaged in BGP [Border Gateway Protocol] hijacking to suppress Telegram traffic in favour of WhatsApp, which is owned by Meta.

Telegram also challenged the government's action in the Delhi High Court, arguing that the restrictions represented a disproportionate response to the problem and describing them as a "band-aid solution."

China's long-standing ban

If India's restrictions were driven by a specific domestic controversy, China's approach represents a fundamentally different model. Telegram has been inaccessible in mainland China since 2015.

The ban forms part of China's extensive internet control system, commonly referred to as the Great Firewall, through which authorities regulate access to foreign digital services and online information.

Chinese concerns regarding Telegram have historically centred on the platform's use by activists, lawyers, and political organisers.

In 2015, the state-run People's Daily criticised the application and reported that human rights lawyers and political activists were using Telegram to exchange information, document alleged abuses, and organise activities that authorities considered politically sensitive.

Telegram's infrastructure posed additional challenges for Chinese authorities. Because communications were routed through servers located outside China's domestic internet ecosystem, state agencies found it more difficult to monitor conversations or identify users.

This conflicted with Beijing's broader approach to internet governance, which places significant emphasis on surveillance, monitoring, and information control.

The platform's perceived threat became even more evident during the 2019 anti-extradition protests in Hong Kong. Although Telegram remained blocked in mainland China, it emerged as one of the primary communication tools used by demonstrators in Hong Kong.

Protest participants relied on the application to coordinate gatherings, share information about police movements, and communicate while attempting to reduce surveillance risks.

For Chinese authorities, the Hong Kong experience reinforced earlier concerns regarding Telegram's ability to facilitate large-scale mobilisation.

Today, mainland Chinese users generally require specialised VPN services and other technical workarounds to access Telegram, creating legal uncertainty for individuals seeking to maintain communication with overseas contacts.

Iran, Russia and the challenge of state control

China is not the only country to view Telegram as a political challenge. Iran imposed a permanent ban on the platform in 2018 after it became widely used during anti-government demonstrations.

At the time, Telegram had tens of millions of users in Iran and had become one of the country's most influential communication tools.

Iranian authorities accused the platform of enabling protest coordination and sought greater control over its operations. Telegram reportedly refused requests to close peaceful protest channels and declined demands to provide user information to judicial authorities.

The dispute ultimately resulted in a nationwide ban.

Russia's experience followed a somewhat different trajectory. In 2018, Russian authorities moved to block Telegram after the company refused to provide encryption-related information requested by security services.

The effort resulted in one of the most ambitious internet blocking campaigns in modern Russian history. However, enforcement proved difficult because Telegram continuously adapted its infrastructure to bypass restrictions.

The ban was eventually lifted in 2020. Yet Telegram's relationship with Moscow remained complicated.

In early 2026, Russian authorities reportedly implemented significant technical restrictions aimed at reducing access to information concerning the country's military activities. Reports suggested that availability for users not employing VPN services fell dramatically as authorities sought tighter control over the information environment.

Brazil, Pakistan, etc. & the use of temporary restrictions

Not all governments have opted for permanent bans. Several countries have instead relied on temporary suspensions, targeted restrictions, or legal pressure.

Brazil has repeatedly confronted Telegram over concerns involving misinformation, extremist content, and compliance with court orders.

The country's Superior Electoral Court has periodically suspended the platform after disputes regarding the removal of harmful content, including election-related misinformation, neo-Nazi material, and hate speech.

Pakistan has also imposed restrictions at various times, particularly during periods of political unrest. Authorities have cited concerns ranging from cybersecurity risks to the spread of misinformation.

However, many have argued that restrictions frequently coincide with efforts to limit opposition mobilisation and control political narratives.

Elsewhere, Cuba restricted Telegram during anti-government demonstrations, seeking to reduce the flow of information and prevent protesters from sharing developments with international audiences in real time.

Thailand blocked the platform in 2020 after it became associated with pro-democracy mobilisation, while Azerbaijan temporarily restricted access during the 2020 Karabakh conflict as part of broader efforts to manage wartime information flows.

Spain briefly moved against Telegram over copyright-related disputes involving major media organisations, demonstrating that concerns surrounding the platform extend beyond politics and security.

Ukraine has adopted a more targeted approach, imposing significant restrictions on the use of Telegram within government institutions and military environments because of concerns regarding potential Russian intelligence access.

Scrutiny even where Telegram remains legal

In several countries, Telegram remains accessible but operates under heightened oversight. Norway has prohibited government officials from using the platform on work devices because of national security concerns.

Belarus has designated numerous opposition-linked Telegram channels as extremist organisations. As a result, even following such channels can create legal risks for users.

Germany examined the possibility of imposing stronger measures against Telegram over allegations involving hate speech and conspiracy-related content. Rather than imposing a ban, German authorities pursued regulatory pressure and financial penalties, encouraging the company to remove certain channels.

Bahrain and Indonesia have also periodically tightened controls through partial blocks, internet service provider restrictions, and increased monitoring requirements.

The arrest that changed Telegram's trajectory

Perhaps the most significant moment in Telegram's history occurred not in Russia, China, or Iran, but in France. On August 24, 2024, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested shortly after his private aircraft landed at Paris-Le Bourget Airport following a flight from Azerbaijan.

The arrest was carried out by French authorities acting on a warrant linked to an investigation conducted by OFMIN, a specialised agency focused on preventing violence against minors.

The case represented a significant development in how governments approach accountability for online platforms.

Rather than focusing solely on content or individual users, French prosecutors pursued a theory that Durov himself could bear responsibility because Telegram allegedly failed to cooperate with lawful investigations and did not implement sufficient moderation mechanisms.

After four days of questioning, Durov appeared before investigating magistrates and was formally indicted on 12 preliminary criminal counts.

The allegations included complicity in facilitating organised criminal activity, distribution and storage of child sexual abuse material, narcotics trafficking, organised fraud, money laundering, and refusal to provide information requested through authorised legal interceptions.

Durov avoided detention by posting €5 million in bail but was placed under judicial supervision. He was barred from leaving France and required to report regularly to police while the investigation continued.

Supporters of free speech and digital privacy criticised the move, arguing that it represented an unprecedented attempt to hold a technology executive criminally liable for user behaviour.

Among the most prominent voices was Elon Musk, who condemned the arrest and framed it as an attack on digital freedom.

The case also generated diplomatic tensions. Russian officials accused France of political persecution, while reports indicated that the United Arab Emirates temporarily suspended progress on a major defence agreement involving French Rafale fighter aircraft.

Perhaps most importantly, the episode appeared to alter Telegram's longstanding approach toward regulatory engagement. Following the arrest, Durov acknowledged that Telegram's rapid expansion had created "growing pains" that enabled criminal misuse of the platform.

Telegram subsequently removed several features considered vulnerable to abuse, including the "People Nearby" function. The company also revised its privacy policy, stating that IP addresses and phone numbers could be shared with authorities when presented with valid legal warrants.

The paradox at the heart of Telegram

The controversies surrounding Telegram reveal a fundamental contradiction that governments have struggled to resolve.

In countries where freedom of expression faces restrictions, Telegram has often provided an essential avenue for communication, organisation, and access to information.

Political activists in places such as China, Iran, Belarus, Hong Kong, and elsewhere have relied on the platform precisely because it offers protections unavailable through domestic alternatives.

At the same time, the platform's scale, limited moderation, and resistance to government requests have repeatedly drawn criticism from authorities attempting to combat fraud, cybercrime, extremist content, misinformation, and other forms of illegal activity.

Democracies around the world are increasingly confronting the same dilemma: how to preserve digital freedoms while ensuring accountability and public safety.

With inputs from agencies