The Sanchar Saathi mandate has raised concerns over privacy as policy watchers question its legality and overreach

The debate over the government’s directive to pre-install the Sanchar Saathi app on all new smartphones hinges on a constitutional concern, which many experts say is more serious than the technical or operational questions it raises. Senior Supreme Court advocate NS Nappinai argues that the order violates a citizen’s right to autonomy over personal devices by allowing the state to place its digital footprint on private property without explicit consent.

Nappinai warned that even before examining obscurity or technical safeguards, the policy “undermines user rights” because it forces citizens to trade privacy for purported security benefits – which fails the proportionality test set by the Supreme Court.

The criticism has intensified following the Department of Telecommunications’ November 28 directive requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install the government’s cyber security app.

The government has defended the move as necessary to curb cyber fraud, with Telecom Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia citing a loss of Rs 22,800 crore in 2024 alone. The order states that the communication partner be visible upon first use, its functionality not be disabled and compliance be reported within 120 days.

Although the minister has clarified that users can delete the app or leave it inactive, critics say the official notification still makes pre-loading mandatory – raising fears that the anti-fraud tool could lead to mass surveillance.

Read this also Telecom sector has already been deregulated, now focus on reforms: Jyotiraditya Scindia

Former IT and telecom secretary R Chandrasekhar said the problem with the policy is not the idea of ​​pre-loaded apps – which is also common in the commercial ecosystem – but the lack of transparency and process when the state mandates it.

Chandrasekhar said compliance needs to be supported by “a clear statement on what the app does and doesn’t do”, especially because the Data Protection Act does not apply to government operations. Without that clarity, concerns over scope, data access and oversight remain unresolved, he said.

Nikhil Pahwa, founder and editor of MediaNama, took a tough stance, calling the directive “effectively malware” as it pushes an unwanted government app onto a user’s personal device without his or her consent. He argued that the minister’s verbal clarifications are meaningless unless the original notification is withdrawn and reissued, and warned that bundling a security app on every device creates a single point of vulnerability that can be exploited if hacked.

Read this also Communication Partner, Explained: DoT order, privacy debate and what changes for you

Pahwa also questioned the legal authority of the Department of Telecommunications to regulate apps, saying the directive continues a pattern of “overreach and thoughtless regulation”.

Adding a political dimension to the debate, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi said the minister’s assurance that Sanchar Saathi is optional is “not really an explanation – it’s a face saver”, arguing that the written instructions still make the app mandatory and non-removable. He linked the opposition to the government’s record on surveillance, saying that people “have every reason to fear being pushed in without their willingness to participate in the Bigg Boss house.”

Chaturvedi said that unless the notification is withdrawn and reissued, the minister’s statement has “no legal significance”, and stressed that any measures affecting citizens’ devices must follow open consultations, rigorous justification and full transparency about data access and purpose.

For the full discussion, watch the attached video