Khushverse @khushverse - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

Khushverse @khushverse

over 2 years ago

Random click/edit 📸 54 days still more go …

1

7

0

1

4K

Khushverse @khushverse

about 20 hours ago

No electricity last 3 hours 6th cross laxmi layout munnekolala @BescomHelpline @NammaBESCOM

1

0

223

khushverse retweeted

Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)

@internetfreedom

3 days ago

Statement on MeitY's notice to WhatsApp over the "usernames" feature The 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 regulatory action should not be taken against it "for launching a feature that may increase cybercrimes", and it directs the company "not to roll out this feature until the consultation on this point is achieved to the satisfaction of the Government". 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. MeitY does not name any provision that lets it approve a product feature before release or order one withdrawn, because there is none, and the provisions it does cite do not supply that power.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. Also, on 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. Further the IT Rules, 2021 are subordinate legislation made under Sections 79 and 87 of the IT Act, and subordinate rules cannot travel beyond the parent statute (Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India). If a rule cannot exceed the Act, a letter certainly cannot. The power to require prior permission for a feature is not in the Act, not in the Rules, and cannot be created by a notice. 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. This notice repeats the move for a single feature and 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. 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. We ask MeitY 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. New Delhi, 1 July 2026

internetfreedom's tweet photo. Statement on MeitY's notice to WhatsApp over the "usernames" feature

The 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 regulatory action should not be taken against it "for launching a feature that may increase cybercrimes", and it directs the company "not to roll out this feature until the consultation on this point is achieved to the satisfaction of the Government". 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. 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. Also, on 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. Further the IT Rules, 2021 are subordinate legislation made under Sections 79 and 87 of the IT Act, and subordinate rules cannot travel beyond the parent statute (Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India). If a rule cannot exceed the Act, a letter certainly cannot. The power to require prior permission for a feature is not in the Act, not in the Rules, and cannot be created by a notice.

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. This notice repeats the move for a single feature and 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. 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.

We ask MeitY 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.

New Delhi, 1 July 2026

11

305

116

53

38K

khushverse retweeted

Sonel

@allthingzabsurd

4 days ago

Bro yeh toh education curriculum mei hi daal do. I've never seen any of my truly well off friends ever call someone a gold digger. It's the ones without the gold who be cryinnnn..

9

345

25

163

106K

Who to follow

Ayushi💫

@aurora_awyr

My account My povs😌😏 My Insta ID - https://t.co/LoOwAigUrc

Eshani Verma

@eshaniverma8

A proud Bihari | An IT Professional | Explorer | Love my Country 🇮🇳

Vikramjit

@VikramjitSarkar

The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.

khushverse retweeted

DEV @Devindr95051794

4 days ago

#KanganaRanaut raj finally agreed with @KanganaTeam now 😅😅

3

266

62

94

26K

Khushverse @khushverse

6 days ago

No electricity last two hours laxmi layout 6th cross munnekolala @BescomHelpline @NammaBESCOM

1

0

250

Khushverse @khushverse

8 days ago

sara comedians ka bhagwan DaMENSCH and Cashify @DaMENSCH_in @Cashify_

0

33

Khushverse @khushverse

9 days ago

@DigvijayBSpeaks https://t.co/avoBd2oA6Q

0

17

5

9

5K

khushverse retweeted

Kshitij @trulyhumanIST

9 days ago

Mumbai local train stabbing case - (Representational Video) Accused: Roshan Suvarna Religion: Hindu He fatally stabbed a 22 yr old boy 😣

75

2K

328

830

509K

Khushverse @khushverse

16 days ago

No electricity munnekolala last one hour @BescomHelpline @NammaBESCOM

1

0

190

khushverse retweeted

Aviral Bhatnagar

@aviralbhat

20 days ago

https://t.co/lye1puttMm

90

1K

254

962

664K

Khushverse @khushverse

21 days ago

@UPPCLLKO @PuVVNLHQ Thank you dmd number and details

1

0

20

Khushverse @khushverse

22 days ago

@UPPCLLKO there is huge power outage in mughalsarai from last few days and literally ppl are on roada now again power outage since morning. Who will help ?

1

0

49

Khushverse @khushverse

21 days ago

@UPPCLLKO @BescomHelpline @NammaBESCOM Pls dm cant share phone number here City :- Mughalsarai District :- 232101 Transformers are age old and no on doing replacement.

1

0

114