“We have taken up the issue of using usernames because there is a serious possibility of impersonations and there is the kind of encouragement that facilitates to commit cybercrime, which is a very serious issue. This is another dimension of the way that cybercrimes can be committed, which is the reason why we have directed WhatsApp to explain why they have this feature. Similarly, we have sought explanations from others,” said Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s (MeitY) S Krishnan at a brief press interaction. Watch the video clip on ANI’s X handle.
Krishnan made this comment after MeitY reportedly sent notices to Signal, Telegram and Zoho-owned Arattai over their username features, days after directing WhatsApp to halt the public rollout of a similar feature until the “satisfaction of the Government.”
Since MeitY did not make these notices public, leaks through the media have become the primary source for understanding exactly what the government’s demands are from the platforms. You can read MeitY’s notice to WhatsApp here: [Full notice (image) | Text file].
Zoho’s Arattai to remove the username feature: While notices to Signal and Telegram are being reported in the media, Zoho-owned messaging platform Arattai said it will disable the username feature to “comply with the regulatory change.” Zoho’s Founder and CEO Sridhar Vembu announced this on X.
Why did MeitY send notices to Signal and Telegram now?
- Telegram has had a usernames feature since 2014 that allows users to contact each other without necessarily knowing their phone numbers.
- Similarly, Signal announced usernames in 2024 to ensure users’ phone numbers do not become the primary public-facing way to connect with each other.
Both features are similar to how WhatsApp intends to implement usernames. So why did MeitY send notices to these messaging platforms immediately after issuing one to WhatsApp? We don’t know.
MediaNama’s take: As both the state and Central governments attempt to strengthen their online censorship powers, these recent notices to messaging platforms, when read alongside the Delhi High Court ruling that sided with the government’s argument based on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ report on Telegram, appear to show that MeitY is expanding its authority beyond takedown or blocking orders to demanding feature-level changes from platforms. It is doing so by leveraging the threat of withdrawal of safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act to the government’s advantage, rather than using the provision for its intended purpose of protecting intermediaries from liability.
If MeitY’s misuse of the IT Act and Rules continues, platforms may have to seek a green signal from the ministry before publicly rolling out any new feature. This would amount to the digital equivalent to India’s pre-1990s licence raj.
Apart from the government’s stated public-interest cyber-safety concerns behind seeking a halt to the public rollout of the usernames feature, state intervention in a platform’s features can also affect its business. As telecom expert Parag Kar argued in his YouTube explainer, WhatsApp could potentially monetise verified badges for government handles, businesses, or individuals seeking greater privacy and trust. The government has said it will allow the username feature on WhatsApp only after consultations and upon the “satisfaction of the Government.”
As Srikanth of Cashless Consumer rightly pointed out, usernames in one form or another have existed for a very long time, and so have cybercrime and impersonation enabled through them. Therefore, it is not entirely clear why the Indian government is targeting WhatsApp and other messaging apps, but not similar digital identifiers such as UPI’s Virtual Payment Address (VPA) or email addresses, which are also prone to impersonation and can facilitate cybercrime.
“Any regulation on usernames should also apply to gmail / UPI on usernames as they inherit the same flaws. The emptiness of digital literacy and disconnect from usage of any system they claim to suggest is showing up,” Srikanth wrote on X.
If Krishnan’s view that “usernames are another dimension of cybercrime” is accepted, then that logic would extend to every user-facing digital identity, including regular usernames on social media platforms.
For instance, while fake accounts impersonating real people without consent are a genuine issue, MediaNama reported in February 2026 that Instagram had “verified” a fake profile of HCL Tech Chairperson Roshni Nadar Malhotra. If so, how should social media usernames be regulated, if at all? Cybercrime can happen anywhere, not just on WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal or Arattai.
According to the MHA-I4C’s non-public Report on Abuse of Telegram for Cybercrime (2026), submitted to the Delhi High Court during the Telegram ban case, over 6.8 lakh cybercrime complaints related to Telegram were registered, involving losses totalling Rs 71,017.5 crore. At least thousands, if not lakhs, of these complaints could have been directly or indirectly linked to usernames, couldn’t they? So what prompted the government to send a notice to Telegram now, when the username feature has existed for the past 12 years?
While cybercrime and fraud are serious problems extending beyond usernames, the recent Delhi High Court hearing in the Telegram ban case revealed how the Indian government is approaching online anonymity.
Among the various Telegram features the government objected to, it stated that: “The platform permits the use of usernames in place of phone numbers, allows concealment of user identifiers, [and] supports self-destructing messages.” This does not appear to reflect a privacy-preserving or anonymity-friendly approach on the part of the government.
Also Read:
Click Here For The Original Source.
