#FactCheck-Viral Fire Video Falsely Linked to Hezbollah Strike on Israeli Military HQ

Introduction
‍

In June 2026, the Government of India temporarily restricted access to Telegram amid concerns that the platform had been used to facilitate examination related malpractice, including the alleged circulation of leaked question papers during the NEET UG re examination. The move reignited a familiar debate about the responsibility of digital platforms for unlawful activities carried out through them.

Critics of such restrictions raise a fundamental question: if a traffic accident occurs on a road, do we shut down the road? If theft takes place inside a shopping mall, do we close the entire mall? By the same logic, is it reasonable to block a communication platform because some individuals misuse it? These questions lie at the heart of a broader conflict between state interests in maintaining public order and the protection of digital rights, privacy, and freedom of communication in an increasingly interconnected world.

The controversy surrounding Telegram therefore extends beyond a single examination or messaging application. It raises a deeper and more pressing question: who should bear responsibility for illegal acts committed through encrypted digital platforms, and where should the law draw the line between effective enforcement and the preservation of fundamental digital freedoms?

Beyond mere communication for millions of students in India, Telegram is a classroom in the digital sense, an archive for their notes, practice papers, lecture recordings, and community groups that hundreds of millions of candidates refer to every single day. Therefore, why on a routine day in June 2026 did the messaging app top every other channel? Temporary internet restriction on the platform had become necessary to stop examination-related malpractice like leakage of question papers and was temporarily suspended, with reports suggesting that this move by the government was on the occasion of the NEET-UG re-examination.

This ban once again brings up a bigger question that cannot be contained within one particular examination. When has it become okay to hold a communication platform responsible and accountable for illegal acts committed over it? Or are the perpetrators solely to blame, and the service can be prohibited? Ultimately, where is the line drawn between public interest, law enforcement, and digital rights and privacy? 

‍

End-to-End Encryption: Architecture and Benefits
‍

At the heart of these discussions of Telegram and other apps lies a technology referred to as "end-to-end encryption" or "E2EE." Quite literally, it means a message is locked with cryptography on the sender's device and can only be unlocked by the intended recipient. Not even the tech platform running the communication app can decipher it for everyone else; it just looks like random gibberish.

‍

The Process
‍

This kind of modern communication relies on public key cryptography. Each person has a public key they can share with anyone and a private key that stays only on their devices. When they send you a message, it is scrambled with crypto that can be unlocked by only your private key. WhatsApp and Signal, for example, use the Signal Protocol, which features "perfect forward secrecy" and is designed to protect communications from ever being unlocked even if one key is compromised. Telegram's approach is a bit unique. By default, Telegram messages aren't encrypted with end-to-end crypto; this only comes via an optional feature called "Secret Chats," a key difference in the regulatory debate.

‍

The Dark Side: Crime, Misuse, and the Moderation Dilemma

‍

The very features that make end-to-end messaging popular among everyday people are privacy, speed, anonymity, and mass reach which also make end-to-end messaging popular among criminals. That, unfortunately, is the catch for policymakers globally: The technology designed to protect innocent users is also the technology that facilitates criminal activity.

‍

3.1 Criminal Abuse

Telegram, in particular, has frequently come under fire for its role in hosting a spectrum of criminal activities, most notably in the recent controversy in India regarding NEET-UG 2026 examination papers where channels allegedly advertised leaked question papers for enormous sums, convincing desperate candidates. In these instances, messages could be altered or deleted using Telegram’s message editing feature, fabricating evidence of prior leaks. However, this extends to illicit marketplaces, drug trafficking, financial fraud, money laundering, and distributing other prohibited content. Telegram's usage in disseminating extremist propaganda and aiding criminal organizations is also frequently cited, leading to bans or restrictions in countries ranging from Brazil to Nepal to Somalia to Vietnam.

‍

3.2 The Moderation Dilemma

But the difficulty is not just with misuse; it’s also about effective moderation. Moderation, however, requires content transparency. Strong encryption is built to obscure just that. Many end-to-end messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp emphasize that even if they wanted to, they would have been able to decipher the content of a user’s message due to their architecture. Telegram has been in scrutiny for years due to its limited cooperation with law enforcement agencies because its default chats are not completely end-to-end encrypted, though there has been an attempt by Pavel Durov, the platform’s founder, to increase cooperation following his 2024 arrest in France.

This gives policymakers the following challenge: How can governments require increased access to fight crime without forcing tech companies to weaken security for everyone? As cryptographers point out, a specific "backdoor" intended to allow access to law enforcement officials can be easily exploited by hackers, foreign governments, and any other actor with nefarious intent.

‍

Comparison of Regulatory Approaches Worldwide

‍

4.1 Authoritarian Countries' Responses

‍

China, for instance, has had the app blocked as part of its strategy to control access to the internet since 2015, and Iran did so in 2018 when the app was used to help organize protests against the government. An infamous Russian bid to block Telegram in 2018 turned into a cautionary story. Trying to censor the service disrupted the IPs of millions of computers, including significant services like those run by Amazon and Google. The move was met by a surge of users turning to VPNs to get access. It’s an expensive, disruptive, and incomplete form of censorship.

‍

4.2 Democratic Countries' Approaches

‍

Democratic jurisdictions generally prefer targeted interventions. Telegram was suspended in Brazil in 2022 and 2023, though again, only in response to a judge’s order in relation to particular investigations, and was lifted when it came into compliance. The EU’s approach has been to build on an established approach of regulation by use of a broader legislative framework, including the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, aimed at platform liability rather than outlawing encryption outright.

 Meanwhile, the proposed scanning of encrypted communications has run into strong judicial headwinds, with the European courts stressing the danger of backdoors to privacy.

‍

4.3 The United Kingdom Approach

‍

The UK offers a middle way. With its Investigatory Powers Act, the government can oblige tech companies to collaborate in legitimate investigations. But this came to a head earlier this year with the case of Apple and the government's attempts to force it to unlock encrypted iCloud backups. Apple not only refused to reduce its encryption but also decided instead to disable some of its features for British users. This has created a problem for democracies across the world: how to balance access for investigators against the need to maintain the security that makes our systems safer.

‍

Judicial and Legislative Perspectives: India and Beyond

‍

In the Indian context, to have a perspective about the legal frameworks concerning content moderation, let’s explore some of the foundational decisions from the Supreme Court. Three decisions have laid the building block for digital rights laws: the first being Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, was upheld, but only by laying rigorous conditions on the review process and chance of challenging the said decision. Another important decision in this sphere is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which stated that the right to privacy is fundamental in nature under Article 21 of the Constitution and stipulated the constitutional requirements of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality against the state’s interventions in fundamental rights. The most recent important case law to consider, in this context, would be Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) which set certain limitations, such as any internet shut-downs or orders have to be temporary, proportional, and have scope for appeal. Further, the Supreme Court demanded transparency around any and all orders of blocking.

These principles of proportionality and legal limitations are highly pertinent to the Telegram issue, especially since Section 69A confers powers to block information in case of concerns about public order, national security, etc., but activists often cite this power to target specific content rather than entire platforms like Telegram. The ban on Telegram in June 2026 and disabling of message editing will force authorities to justify not only their statutory authority but also the need for proportionate means.

These aspects are amplified by IT Rules, 2021, which mandate that some instant messaging platforms may require identification of the ‘first originator’ of messages, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to protect digital personal data by ensuring it does not undermine national security exceptions to this end. 

Moreover, the use of encryption to ensure secure and private communications is becoming an important point of legal discourse globally. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Podchasov v. Russia (2024) held that mandating decryption on devices as a tool of investigative power constituted a disproportionate interference with an individual's right to privacy implying that while states may indeed have authority to regulate communication and digital services, any such measures limiting the scope of encryption will have to meet strict requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be legally justifiable.

‍

Constitutional Validity of the Ban

‍

The government's case for a constitutional ban on Telegram rests upon its ability to satisfy the proportionality framework established by Puttaswamy and Anuradha Bhasin.

1. Legitimate aim:  The state's strong suit. This is the government's best argument. Protection of the integrity of NEET-UG, a high-stakes test with close to 2.4 million students, can indeed be a legitimate state objective. Given that there is evidence of channels that allegedly were involved in selling leaked question papers, the action is presumably justifiable under section 69A for preventing the incitement or occurrence of public disorder or preventing cognizable offenses.
2. Necessity: The National Testing Agency (NTA) itself admitted that localized removal of suspicious accounts on Telegram had already mitigated the risks, while Telegram insisted that it had independently taken down numerous channels. The fact that the block affected more than 150 million users in India, where the medium is widely used for personal communication and is also utilized on other platforms like WhatsApp, Discord, and Instagram to a similar or higher extent, raises the responsibility to justify a strict platform-wide ban. Moreover, there is a significant legal question regarding the state’s authority under section 69A to direct Telegram to disable its message-editing capability.
3. Proportionality and process: The block, even though it was temporary and intended to ensure fairness in the examination system, severely undermined legitimate uses of the platform by students who used it to share educational materials and organize study groups. Moreover, the opaqueness around the section 69A order is itself hard to reconcile with the transparency requirements set out in Anuradha Bhasin. 

Thus, while the objectives of preventing exam fraud may be legitimate, the necessity and proportionality of single platform-wide bans remain highly suspect under Indian constitutional law.

‍

Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward

‍

The Telegram controversy points to the need for a better balancing act in platform governance in India. Firstly, instead of blanket platform shutdowns, action should target specific channels, bots, or URLs, as may be the case. Secondly, any attempt to dictate changes to features, such as disabling message editing, should be based on specific statutory provisions, not an expansive reading of Section 69A. Furthermore, there is a dire need for increased transparency; blocking orders must state the justification for the order, what is being blocked, and for how long, as far as possible. In the long run, stricter cross-border cooperation via streamlined MLATs, or through the appointment of local legal representatives by foreign platforms, would facilitate easier enforcement. Ultimately, all major blocking decisions must be accompanied by proportionality assessments. Lastly, India must resist pressure to provide access to encryption backdoors; while this might ease investigative burdens, doing so would severely jeopardise the cybersecurity of India, its businesses, and citizens.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Telegram ban is an example of the tricky equilibrium between protection of public interest and protection of digital liberties in our hyper-connected world. While the intent to counter exam fraud is justifiable, a blanket ban on any platform has much broader implications on questions of necessity, proportionality and transparency. India has a well-developed constitutional and legal framework to deal with this issue already, and the challenge will be to see if those powers are used appropriately.

‍

References

‍

Cases:

‍

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 — Supreme Court of India
• Podchasov v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33696/19, February 2024)
• Apple Inc. v. United States (In re Search of an Apple iPhone, C.D. Cal. 2016)
• Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Union of India & Anr., Delhi High Court (June 2026) — Sub judice

‍

Legislation & Rules:

‍

• Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) — Sections 69A, 79
• IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009
• IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India) & DPDP Rules, 2025
• EU Digital Services Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/2065)
• EU Digital Markets Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/1925)
• EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) Proposal — In Trilogue, June 2026
• UK Investigatory Powers Act, 2016

‍

Policy Sources:

‍

• Internet Freedom Foundation, Statement on Telegram Block, 16 June 2026
•  European Commission, ProtectEU Security Strategy, June 2025
•  MeitY Section 69A Blocking Order re: Telegram (June 2026)
•  NTA Press Release on NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination, 16 June 2026

‍

Introduction

In a business that historically operated in a landscape defined by probability and odds, India’s real-money gaming companies have taken their own legal bet, a gamble that may very well decide whether or not they survive. Play Games24x7, Junglee Games, Sachiko Gaming, and Head Digital Works were in front of India’s highest court on July 14, seeking review of an order that will ultimately decide the fate of these companies.

The Facts

The firms’ review petitions challenge the May 27 ruling in which the Supreme Court also upheld the constitutional legality of the 28% GST on online gaming, paving the way for over 1.5 trillion in back taxes. The petitions, prepared by the Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan law firm, “do not ask to set the entire case all over again” since a review is a technical process usually dealt with by the same bench of judges in their chambers when there’s an error on the record or genuinely fresh material before it before the case may potentially be referred for a new trial in open court if there is something significant in it.

The Genesis of the Legal Battle

To understand why gaming firms are pulling this lever, it helps to revisit what the Court actually decided in May. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that once a player stakes money on an uncertain outcome, the platform is supplying an "actionable claim" arising from betting and gambling under GST law. The long-cherished distinction between a "game of skill" and a "game of chance", which the industry had used for years to argue it wasn't really gambling, was declared irrelevant the moment cash entered the pot.

Just as consequentially, the Court rejected the industry's central financial argument: that GST should be calculated only on the platform's commission, or gross gaming revenue, rather than on the entire amount players deposit into a contest. The bench sided with tax authorities, ruling that the 28% levy applies to the full face value of every bet. It also found that 2023 amendments to GST law were merely "clarificatory", not the creation of a brand-new tax, a finding that opened the door to retrospective demands stretching back years, rather than only from October 2023 onwards, when the amendments took effect.

The practical fallout was severe. The ruling revived a ₹21,000 crore notice against Gameskraft that the Karnataka High Court had earlier quashed, and it validated roughly 91 show-cause notices issued industry-wide, with estimates of the total exposure ranging as high as ₹1.5–2.5 lakh crore, depending on the source. For context, that figure dwarfs the cumulative revenues several of these companies have ever earned.

The Arguments Now on the Table

The review petitions attack the judgement from several angles. Head Digital Works, the parent of gaming platform A23, argues the case raised substantial constitutional questions that should have gone to a larger Constitution Bench rather than a two-judge bench and that the ruling contains errors serious enough to warrant reconsideration. A recurring theme across the petitions is timing: the companies contend GST should be triggered only when winnings are actually paid out to players, not the moment an entry fee changes hands, and that treating the 2023 amendments as retrospective effectively taxes transactions under a legal framework that didn't yet exist when they occurred. They also argue the ruling creates an unfair mismatch, taxing online games more harshly than comparable offline activity, and in Head Digital Works' filing that the judgement glosses over the industry's long-standing constitutional protection for skill-based businesses under Article 19(1)(g).

A Sector Already on the Ropes

What makes this legal battle unusually high-stakes is that it isn't happening in isolation. In August 2025, Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, banning all online real-money games nationwide regardless of whether they involve skill, chance, or a mix of both while carving out room for e-sports and social gaming. That law is itself under constitutional challenge, with hearings before a three-judge bench expected this year. So the same companies fighting a ₹1.5 trillion tax bill for games they used to run are simultaneously fighting for the right to run those games at all going forward. Add to this that GST on the relevant category of actionable claims was separately hiked to 40% in September 2025 as part of a broader rate overhaul, and it's clear the ground has shifted well beyond what the industry anticipated when this dispute began.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court will first decide whether these petitions clear the threshold for review, a high bar by design, since courts are wary of turning review into a backdoor appeal. If the bench finds no fresh ground, the May 27 judgement becomes final, and companies will be left negotiating settlements, instalment plans, or insolvency proceedings against tax bills that, in several cases, exceed what they've ever earned. If the Court does find merit, it could reopen questions that reshape not just the gaming industry's tax liability but the constitutional line between what states can regulate as "betting and gambling" and what Parliament can tax as a national digital service.

Either way, the outcome will be watched well beyond the gaming world. Any digital business that collects money from users against an uncertain outcome from fantasy sports to prediction markets to certain fintech products has a stake in how the court defines "actionable claim" and how far a "clarificatory" amendment can legally reach into the past. Tax authorities, for their part, will be watching just as closely: a win here reinforces a template they've already begun applying to other sectors accused of restructuring around narrow tax definitions.

There's also an investor angle that tends to get lost in the legal jargon. Real-money gaming in India attracted billions of dollars in foreign investment over the past decade, built on the premise that skill-based games occupied a legitimate, constitutionally protected business category distinct from gambling. Between the May verdict and the PROGA ban, that premise has effectively collapsed within the space of a year. Whether or not the review petitions succeed, the episode is likely to be studied as a cautionary tale about regulatory and tax risk in India's digital economy, a reminder that a business model resting on a legal distinction is only as durable as a court's willingness to keep drawing that line.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision will extend far beyond the gaming industry, shaping India's approach to digital taxation, regulatory certainty, and investor confidence. For now, the ball is back in the Supreme Court's hands, and the industry has staked its remaining legal capital on convincing the same bench that got it here to think again.

Sources

• Online gaming firms move Supreme Court seeking review of verdict upholding 28% GST levy — ANI News
• Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 — Wikipedia
• Anti-gambling act targets real-money gaming — Law.asia
• Behind the Ban: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 — Lexology

‍

Introduction

As we navigate the digital realm that offers unlimited opportunities, it also exposes us to potential cyber threats and scams. A recent incident involving a businessman in Pune serves as a stark reminder of this reality. The victim fell prey to a sophisticated online impersonation fraud, where a cunning criminal posed as a high-ranking official from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). This cautionary tale exposes the inner workings of the scam and highlights the critical need for constant vigilance in the virtual world.

Unveiling the scam

It all began with a phone call received by the victim, who lives in Taware Colony, Pune, on September 5, 2023. The caller, who identified himself as "Manish Pande, department head of HPCL," lured the victim by taking advantage of his online search for an LPG agency. With persuasive tactics, the fraudster claimed to be on the lookout for potential partners.

When a Pune man received a call on September 5, 2023. The caller, who introduced himself as “department head of HPCL”, was actually a cunning fraudster. It turns out, the victim had been searching for an LPG agency online, which the fraudster cleverly used to his advantage. In a twisted plot, the fraudster pretended to be looking for potential locations to establish a new LPG cylinder agency in Pune. 

Enthralled by the illusion

The victim fell for the scam, convinced by the mere presence of "HPCL" in the bank account's name. Firstly victim transferred Rs 14,500 online as “registration fees”. Things got worse when, without suspicion, the victim obediently transferred Rs 1,48,200 on September 11 for a so-called "dealership certificate." To add to the charade of legitimacy, the fraudster even sent the victim registration and dealership certificates via email.

Adding to the deception, the fraudster, who had targeted the victim after discovering his online inquiry, requested photos of the victim's property and personal documents, including Aadhaar and PAN cards, educational certificates, and a cancelled cheque. These seemingly legitimate requests only served to reinforce the victim's belief in the scam.

The fraudster said they were looking for a place to allot a new LPG cylinder agency in Pune and would like to see if the victim’s place fits in their criteria. The victim agreed as it was a profitable business opportunity. The fraudster called the victim to “confirm” that his documents have been verified and assured that HPCL would be allotting him an LPG cylinder agency. On September 12, the fraudster again demanded a sum of money, this time for the issuance of an "HPCL license." 

As the victim responded that he did not have the money, the fraudster insisted on an immediate payment of at least 50 per cent of the stipulated amount. So the victim transferred Rs 1,95,200 online. On the following day the 13th of September 2023, the fraudster asked the victim for the remaining amount. The victim said he would arrange the money in a few days. Meanwhile, on the same day, the victim went to the HPCL’s office in the Pune Camp area with the documents he had received through the emails. The HPCL employees confirmed these documents were fake, even though they looked very similar to the originals. The disclosure was a pivotal moment, causing the victim to fully comprehend the magnitude of the deceit and ultimately pursue further measures against the cybercriminal.

Best Practices

• Ensuring Caller Identity- Prioritize confirming the identity of anyone reaching out to you, especially when conducting financial transactions. Hold back from divulging confidential information until you have verified the credibility of the request. 
• Utilize Official Channels- Communicate with businesses or governmental organizations through their verified contact details found on their official websites or trustworthy sources. Avoid solely relying on information gathered from online searches. 
• Maintaining Skepticism with Unsolicited Communication- Exercise caution when approached by unexpected calls or emails, particularly those related to monetary transactions. Beware of manipulative tactics used by scammers to pressure swift decisions.
• Double-Check Information- To ensure accuracy, it is important to validate the information given by the caller on your own. This can be done by double-checking and cross-referencing the details with the official source. If you come across any suspicious activities, do not hesitate to report it to the proper authorities. 
• Report Suspicious Activities- Reporting can aid in conducting investigations and providing assistance to the victim and also preventing similar incidents from occurring.  It is crucially important to promptly report cyber crimes so law enforcement agencies can take appropriate action. A powerful resource available to victims of cybercrime is the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, equipped with a 24x7 helpline number, 1930. This portal serves as a centralized platform for reporting cybercrimes, including financial fraud.

Conclusion

This alarming event serves as a powerful wake-up call to the constant danger posed by online fraud. It is crucial for individuals to remain sceptical, diligently verifying the credibility of unsolicited contacts and steering clear of sharing personal information on the internet. As technology continues to evolve, so do the strategies of cyber criminals, heightening the need for users to stay on guard and knowledgeable in the complex digital world.

References:

• https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/cybercriminal-posing-hindustan-petroleum-official-cheat-pune-man-9081057/
• https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/crime/pune-man-duped-of-rs-3-5-lakh-by-cyber-fraudster-impersonating-hpcl-official-article-106253358