After WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal receive notices on username feature
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on Thursday (July 2, 2026) sent notices to Telegram and Signal, seeking information on their username feature
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on Thursday (July 2, 2026) sent notices to Telegram and Signal, seeking information on their username feature. The notice comes shortly after a similar missive was sent to WhatsApp on Wednesday (July 1, 2026). The Meta-owned messaging platform is yet to implement the feature anywhere in the world, but is taking reservations for usernames. Spokespersons for Telegram and Signal did not have an immediate comment to share on the notices (Telegram was contacted outside normal business hours in the United Arab Emirates).
The username feature appeared to remain available on both platforms well into Thursday evening. The Union government’s move against the three messaging platforms comes on the heels of a week-long ban of Telegram, after authorities argued that backdated PDF files could lead to people mistakenly assuming a question paper was leaked. Telegram fought against the ban in the Delhi High Court, calling the move a “mistake”. The court sided with the government, holding the short ban a proportionate response. Telegram was unblocked after the NEET exam was held, following the leak of the first attempt.
The Internet Freedom Foundation, a Delhi-based digital rights advocacy group, called the pressure on the messaging platforms an “unconstitutional dragnet over privacy features” (accounts with a username on all platforms are designed to conceal phone numbers). “The executive is restraining lawful features, and with them the private communication those features protect, without the authority of law,” IFF said in a statement. “We agree there can be regulatory authority for such features however it requires a clear articulation of policy intent that is rooted in legislation. This simply does not exist at present.
No provision of the IT Act permits it as we have explained in our statement yesterday,” the body added, arguing the notices were unconstitutional. The notice to Signal in particular was worrying, IFF said. “Signal … keeps almost [no data on user accounts and activity], has refused to build the searchable directory an identification order would need, and is the tool journalists, activists and many at risk people and their contacts rely on, so a notice aimed at it strikes straight at protected speech,” IFF said.
The BriefWire