WhatsApp username debate centres on informational privacy

Published 7 July 2026 · tech

What is perhaps sui generis (unique) about the WhatsApp “username” debate is that both the instant messaging platform and the Centre, in different ways, ultimately

What is perhaps sui generis (unique) about the WhatsApp “username” debate is that both the instant messaging platform and the Centre, in different ways, ultimately seek the same objective: protecting the informational privacy of users. The Supreme Court, in its August 2017 judgment delivered by a nine-judge Bench, held that “informational privacy” is a facet of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court recognised that threats to privacy in the information age could arise not only from the State but also from non-State actors. WhatsApp claims that its optional “username” feature, publicly announced on June 29 but yet to be rolled out in India, enhances user privacy. A username would prevent a user’s phone number from being accessed by someone, possibly a stranger, who does not already have it. Users would have unique usernames to protect themselves from impersonation and fraud.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), however, is apprehensive that the feature could lead to an increase in cybercrime. It fears that criminals may exploit the anonymity offered by usernames to assume false identities and breach the privacy of unsuspecting users. In its communication to WhatsApp, the Ministry listed an array of online crimes that could compromise informational privacy. These included online fraud, phishing, digital arrest scams, impersonation and identity spoofing, including impersonation of individuals, public authorities, financial institutions and government agencies, by permitting the adoption of usernames closely resembling those of genuine persons or institutions. Critics argue that the government cannot intervene in a company’s launch of a lawful feature without a clear statutory basis. They contend that the State cannot determine what features a company may offer its users. The government, however, may contend that its communication seeking clarification from WhatsApp on the username feature is consistent with the legitimate aims of the State to protect national security, prevent crime and safeguard public welfare.

The 2017 judgment in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case observed that while the “web is a source of lawful activity, both personal and commercial”, concerns of national security also arise because “the seamless structure of the web can be exploited by terrorists to wreak havoc and destruction on civilised societies. Cyber attacks can threaten financial systems”. The government could also rely on the judgment to argue that privacy is not an absolute right and that the State may intervene where the life, savings and privacy of members of the public are at risk. However, the Constitution Bench also held that any encroachment on privacy must be justified by a fair, just and reasonable law, backed by a legitimate aim, and must satisfy the test of proportionality. In other words, there should be a rational nexus between the objective sought to be achieved and the means adopted.