Telegram Notices: India Seeks Answers on Anonymous Messaging Features
Government asks Telegram and Signal to explain privacy safeguards as scrutiny of online platforms intensifies.
India seeks explanations from Telegram and Signal over anonymous messaging features.
Telegram notices issued by the Indian government have expanded regulatory scrutiny of online messaging platforms. Authorities have asked Telegram and Signal to explain the safeguards behind features that allow users to communicate without revealing their phone numbers.
According to a government source, India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology sent the notices on Thursday. Officials asked both platforms to explain how they prevent impersonation, fraud and misuse while protecting user privacy.
The move follows India’s temporary block of Telegram last month and signals broader oversight of individual product features across multiple messaging services.
Asim Munir and Pakistan Leaders Arrive in Tehran for Ayatollah Khamenei’s Funeral
On Wednesday, the ministry also directed WhatsApp to suspend the rollout of its planned username feature. Officials gave the company three days to justify the feature or face possible regulatory action.
The Indian government argues that anonymous usernames could increase online fraud, phishing scams, digital arrest scams and identity impersonation.
The IT ministry, Telegram and Signal did not immediately comment on the notices.
The latest action adds to a series of disputes between Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s government and global technology companies. Earlier this year, the government tightened content moderation rules by requiring platforms to remove government-flagged content within three hours instead of the previous 36-hour deadline.
The Internet Freedom Foundation criticised the government’s move and urged authorities to withdraw the notices. The organisation said the action against Signal could affect encrypted communication and protected speech, particularly for journalists and activists.
The group argued that the expanded regulatory approach lacks a clear legal basis and could have wider implications for online privacy and digital rights.
