When the Union government launched the Sanchar Saathi app in 2023, it was introduced as a citizencentric platform to fight cyber fraud and trace stolen devices. The initiative delivered impressive outputs in its first year—over 42 lakh mobile phones blocked, more than 26 lakh lost phones traced, and 10 million app downloads—making it an important pillar of India’s cyber safety framework. But the debate escalated sharply when the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), acting under the Telecom Cyber Security Rules 2024, directed manufacturers and importers to pre-install the app on all smartphones without an uninstall option. This triggered a national debate about surveillance, privacy, and user autonomy. Responding to widespread criticism from the Opposition, digital rights groups, legal experts, and technology companies, Union Telecom Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia has now clarified that Sanchar Saathi will remain optional, not mandatory.
Why Sanchar Saathi Was Introduced: The first objective behind launching Sanchar Saathi is crime prevention. India has witnessed a steep rise in cyber fraud, phishing and impersonation calls, and users often become victims due to low digital awareness. The Chakshu module inside the app enables citizens to report suspicious calls and fraudulent links, helping the DoT block numbers used in cybercrime. The second objective concerns handset legitimacy. With the proliferation of cloned phones, tampered IMEI numbers, and black-market imports, the app verifies device authenticity and helps authorities track phones that change hands in criminal networks. These two purposes, cybercrime control and device verification, form the declared rationale for its nationwide rollout.
Concerns That Sparked Pushback: The earlier mandatory-installation directive opened three major concerns. The first was the erosion of informed consent. A pre-installed, non-removable government app would have given the state a permanent presence inside every smartphone, a device that forms the heart of personal and professional life. The second was privacy risk. The app requests access to call logs, messaging functions, device management, and media files on Android and camera and photos on iPhones. While permission remains consentbased, citizens feared that future updates could expand data collection without sufficient legislative checks, making it inconsistent with the proportionality principle laid down in the Puttaswamy (2017) privacy judgement. The third concern was the precedent. If one government-mandated app became compulsory, critics warned, others could follow, converting smartphones into state-regulated spaces. These anxieties, amplified by resistance from global technology companies, pushed the government to clarify that no user will be forced to keep or install Sanchar Saathi.
How the Government Justifies the Platform: Government agencies strongly defend Sanchar Saathi even after making it optional. First, they argue that no data is collected automatically and that all permissions require explicit user approval; secondly, they emphasise that India’s rising cybercrime graph demands proactive digital defence mechanisms, especially in a country where digital literacy is uneven. Thirdly, they point to the platform’s success, millions of blocked and recovered phones, to illustrate the tangible public benefits. Finally, they claim that the app increases transparency rather than surveillance by helping users identify the number of SIM cards issued in their names, detect unauthorised connections and block misuse. In the official narrative, Sanchar Saathi is a digital shield, and optional adoption preserves autonomy while promoting safety.
Future Challenges for India’s Digital Architecture: The first challenge is legal legitimacy. Sanchar Saathi is not backed by a law passed by Parliament, allowing its scope to evolve through executive notifications rather than legislative oversight. Clear statutory safeguards are essential for long-term trust. The second challenge is technological reliability. India has a history of major user-data leaks, and any app with deep permissions, even when voluntary, must demonstrate world-class cyber protection. The third challenge lies in safeguarding digital rights. Cybersecurity and surveillance often sit close together; the line between them must be defended rigorously. The fourth challenge is transparency in rule-making. The controversy became explosive because citizens learnt of the proposed mandatory rollout through media reports rather than official communication. A democracy demands openness in matters affecting every smartphone user. The fifth one relates to the tirade by the Opposition, thereby comparing it with Pegasus, which must be countered by creating an awareness amongst the users in the country.
The toughest hurdle is accepting that cybercrime thrives not on system flaws, but on social engineering that targets human trust. “Digital arrest” operations, impersonation of government agencies, and fraudulent investment schemes exploit fear, misplaced trust, and authority bias. No SIMbinding technology can stop a user from believing they are speaking to a CBI officer when the call uses sophisticated spoofing, and that behavioural vulnerability cannot be resolved merely through device authentication. There is still no roadmap for AI-driven real-time fraud-detection systems capable of analysing patterns, such as rapid account switching or mass messaging, nor for cross-border cooperation when cybercriminals operate from territories beyond India’s jurisdiction. Equally, the financial trail—payment gateways and cryptocurrency exchanges through which the proceeds of fraud flow—remains outside the Sanchar Saathi architecture. The assumption that users will proactively check unauthorised SIMs and report fraud ignores behavioural evidence: most victims engage with safety tools only after the crime has occurred. Without a simplified interface and sustained digital awareness campaigns, even high installation rates will not guarantee meaningful protection. Privacy will also remain under the scanner because continuous SIM verification requires persistent access to device identifiers and telecom data, demanding stronger assurances than verbal commitments.
Trust, Not Compulsion, Is the Road Ahead: At its heart, the Sanchar Saathi debate was never about whether cybercrime should be stopped; it was about how security must be balanced with autonomy. Citizens deserve safety from financial fraud and online threats, but they also deserve uninterrupted control over their personal devices. By clarifying that Sanchar Saathi is optional, not compulsory, the government has restored constitutional balance and responded to public anxiety without abandoning the technology that helps prevent cybercrime.
But the episode has also exposed a deeper truth: cyber safety will not be achieved through technological mandates alone. These directives are tactical moves in a strategic war that India is still learning to fight—security theatre if poorly executed, genuine progress if anchored in a broader ecosystem that includes AI-enabled monitoring, global collaboration, financial-system accountability, and mass user education. The next chapter will depend on whether citizens choose the app because it protects them and not because the state compels them. The Sanchar Saathi debate was never about whether cybercrime should be stopped; it was about how security must be balanced with autonomy
(The writer is a senior political analyst and strategic affairs columnist based in Shimla.)
