New Delhi: The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has said that the Union government’s notice to WhatsApp, opposing the usernames feature in the platform doesn’t have any clear legal basis and instead is clear interference by the executive into a company’s decisions.The IFF has termed the government’s attempt to block the new feature as “licence raj for software features.”“The Internet Freedom Foundation is concerned that the notice has no clear basis in law. It is an attempt by the executive to decide what a company may build and ship, which no statute permits. The notice treats the launch of a lawful feature as a wrong the company must justify. That reverses the ordinary position especially given the absence of any clear legal power that exists,” the IFF said in a statement on Wednesday (July 1).The IFF added that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) does not name any provision that lets it approve a product feature before release or order one withdrawn, because there is none, and the provisions it does cite do not supply that power.“Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 is a safe harbour that protects an intermediary from liability for what its users post, so long as it observes due diligence. It decides when a platform can be held liable. It is not a power for MeitY to decide what features the platform may offer. Sections 66C and 66D punish identity theft and cheating by personation. They are criminal offences, tried by courts, aimed at the person who steals an identity, not at the maker of a tool that a third party misuses,” said the IFF.The IFF said that by MeitY’s logic, a telecom operator could be told not to sell SIM cards because SIM cards are used in almost every online fraud.“Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(2) and Rule 4 of the IT Rules, 2021 are due diligence and grievance obligations and cannot be converted into a licensing scheme. Section 69A, the one provision that lets MeitY control what appears online, permits the blocking of specific information through a set procedure. It says nothing about which features a company may build,” IFF said in its statement.Earlier, the notice, sent on Tuesday (July 1) by MeitY, had sought an “explanation” from Meta about the new feature, along with documentation, “within three days”.“You are also directed not to roll out this feature until the consultation on this point is achieved to the satisfaction of the government,” says the notice.While introducing the feature, WhatsApp has said that the username will keep phone numbers “private”.Statement on MeitY’s notice to WhatsApp over the “usernames” featureThe Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has sent WhatsApp a notice about the usernames feature it announced on 29 June 2026. The notice asks the company to explain, within three days, why… pic.twitter.com/OZYfoIT1yE— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) July 1, 2026The government’s notice says the feature could “materially increase fraud, phishing, digital arrest scams” in India, enable “bad actors to solicit and message victims” and warns that users might impersonate individuals or government authorities if they get usernames.“MeitY has tried this before. In March 2024 it told the same large intermediaries, among them AI Companies, to obtain its explicit permission before deploying under-tested AI models. That was criticised as an overreach that sought to build a licensing mechanism with no empowering provision in the IT Act, and within a fortnight MeitY withdrew it and dropped the permission requirement,” said the IFF.‘This matters beyond WhatsApp’It said that the Ministry’s latest move goes further, because it names one company, sets a three-day clock, and bars the launch until MeitY is satisfied.“This matters beyond WhatsApp. A power asserted against one company by letter can be turned on any company and any feature. On this reasoning MeitY could tell a browser not to switch on a privacy setting by default, or a payments app not to add a login method, each time until it was content,” said the IFF.“The notice also invokes traceability, through Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021 and the identification of the “first originator” of a message. Rule 4(2) has been challenged as exceeding its parent provision and resting on no law made by Parliament, and that challenge is pending before the Delhi high court. Raising it against a feature meant to share fewer identifiers fits a pattern,” it added.The IFF has asked the Ministry to state the exact provision of law under which this notice, and the direction to halt the roll-out, has been issued, and to withdraw that direction.“It should stop using Section 79 and the contested traceability rule as leverage to control product design and to reverse features that improve privacy. Impersonation and fraud are real risks, but they are met by enforcing the criminal law against those who commit them, and by open processes that rest on identified legal powers. They are not met by MeitY deciding, in private and by letter, what features Indians may use. That is a licence raj for software features,” said the IFF.