New Delhi: The Union government has sent formal notices to Telegram and Signal on Thursday (July 2), asking both messaging platforms to explain the safeguards in place around features that let users send messages without disclosing their phone numbers, Reuters reported, citing a government source. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has urged the government to withdraw the notices and disclose them publicly adding that the inclusion of Signal indicated what “this is really about”.This move comes a day after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent a notice to Whatsapp on Tuesday (July 1) directing it to not rollout the proposed “username” feature for users.The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that Telegram and Signal were asked to explain how they guard against impersonation and misuse that such phone-number-free features could enable.As reported by The Wire earlier, MeitY has sought an “explanation” from Meta about the new feature, along with documentation, “within three days”.Telegram introduced the username feature years before Signal or WhatsApp did. Signal has made the feature available in India since 2024.The Union government has reportedly raised concerns that letting people message using usernames instead of phone numbers could make it easier for scammers to pose as public figures, run phishing schemes, and pull off “digital arrest” frauds.Referring to the development as “digital license raj”, IFF called on MeitY to withdraw the notices to the three platforms and publish them, and state the provision of law under which it claims to act.Also read: Govt Blocks WhatsApp’s Username Feature, Cites Scam Risk“In two days the ministry has gone from one platform to three, and from acting on content to policing the design of products. This is a dragnet, it is widening, and it has no basis in law. As we warned in our first statement it is a digital license raj that is expanding arbitrary executive power,” IFF said.The digital rights group underlined that the “core defect is constitutional” and that the executive is “restraining lawful features” and with them the private communication those features protect, “without the authority of law”.It added, “A restraint on how a platform may operate cuts into its freedom to carry on its work under Article 19(1)(g), and a restraint on private messaging cuts into the users’ freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). A restriction on either must fall within Article 19(2) or 19(6) and must rest on a law, and here there is no law at all.”Further, the IFF pointed out that inclusion of Signal is “the sharpest sign of what this is really about” since it is a non-profit, remains encrypted by default, collects almost no data and its username feature exists for the single purpose of letting people communicate without handing over a phone number.“Signal is a private contact tokens with no public directory, which reduces what a user reveals rather than expose it. Signal in particular keeps almost nothing, 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 group noted that behind all the three notices is the demand for traceability under Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021, which cannot be met on an encrypted service without breaking the encryption that protects every user, and which is already under challenge before the Delhi high court as exceeding the Act.“First pieces of content are blocked in thousands, even entire accounts sometimes just for parody posts, then a whole platform is blocked for a week, and now companies are told to account for the features that keep their users safe. This is how executive power grows past the limits of our constitution,” IFF said, adding that the move needs to be “unequivocally condemned for the widespread digital authoritarianism”.Statement on MeitY’s notices widen an unconstitutional dragnet over privacy featuresNew Delhi, 2 July 2026A day after its notice to WhatsApp on the usernames feature, as per press reports MeitY has today evening sent the same kind of notice to Telegram and Signal, asking each… https://t.co/DL24Yvty2N— Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) July 2, 2026Signal does not reveal country-specific figures, while Telegram – which the Union government recently banned for a week ahead of the NEET (UG) re-examination – has over 150 million Indian users. WhatsApp has over three billion users worldwide, with 500 million in India, its biggest market.After the ban, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov alleged that Reliance Group, in which Meta holds a partial stake, and WhatsApp may have lobbied to impose the ban ahead of the NEET reexamination held on June 21.Durov accused Reliance of disrupting access for users outside India, including the United Arab Emirates, using the border gateway protocol (BGP) hijacking technique, a method that misroutes internet traffic by broadcasting unauthorised routing information.“Network operators are advised to reject unauthorised BGP announcements from Reliance (AS18101) to prevent route hijacks and ensure stable Internet access for their users. Such abuse of global Internet routing is alarming,” he wrote, “I wouldn’t be surprised if Reliance/WhatsApp were also behind the recent lobbying effort to ban Telegram in India.” He suggested the disruption was part of a “competitive war,” citing Meta’s involvement with Reliance.Indian telecom Reliance is sabotaging access to Telegram for millions of users OUTSIDE India (including the UAE) via a rogue method called BGP hijacking.The sabotage seems intentional, as Reliance has ignored multiple reports.This may be part of a competitive war, as…— Pavel Durov (@durov) June 16, 2026