Over the past two to three years, India, once proudly called the mother of democracy, has begun to resemble the very authoritarian state it once criticised. From digital surveillance to internet controls and now the controversy around the Sanchar Saathi app, the Indian state’s growing appetite for monitoring citizens is becoming increasingly visible. The recent attempt to make this government-backed app mandatory on all smartphones raised serious concerns about privacy, consent, and the limits of state power.
What made this episode even more disturbing was that the move came quietly – without parliamentary debate, without public consultation, and without wide media scrutiny – until a Reuters report and resistance from companies like Apple forced the government into a partial retreat.
What Is Sanchar Saathi and Why Is It Controversial?
The Sanchar Saathi app, promoted by the Department of Telecommunications, is officially projected as a public welfare initiativemeant to curb telecom fraud, spam calls, cybercrime, and mobile theft. The government claims that millions of phones have already been traced or blocked using this system.
On the surface, the intent appears noble. But controversy erupted when reports suggested that the government had issued directions to smartphone manufacturers to pre-install this app compulsorily on all new devices and push it as a system update on existing phones, making it difficultor impossibleto uninstall or disable.
Pre-installed system apps are not like ordinary mobile applications. They operate at a deeper level of the operating system and enjoy wider permissions. This is where the fear began.
Why Mandatory Pre-Installation Set Off Alarm Bells
The biggest concern was consent. If an app is truly beneficial, why cannot citizens choose to download it voluntarily like WhatsApp, Google Maps, or DigiLocker?
Critics argued that true optionality cannot coexist with compulsory factory installation, especially in a country where digital literacy remains uneven. For millions, a pre-loaded app effectively becomes permanent. There were also fears, never conclusively addressed, that data collection could begin the moment the app is embedded, even before the user is aware of it.
Adding to the anxiety was the app’s reported capability to access sensitive phone functions – camera, contacts, messages, storage, and network activity – raising the possibility of real-time surveillance.
Parliament, Opposition and the ‘Pegasus Shadow’
Once the Reuters report surfaced, the issue reached Parliament during the winter session. Opposition leaders wasted no time in drawing parallels with the Pegasus spyware scandal.
Karti Chidambaram described Sanchar Saathi as “Pegasus Plus Plus”.Priyanka Chaturvedi termed it a “Bigg Boss-style surveillance model”.John Brittas (CPI-M) warned that pre-installation defeats the very definition of choice and could enable mass civilian traceability grids.
These fears did not arise in a vacuum. India still does not have clear public answers on how Pegasus was used, who authorised it, and against whom. The Supreme Court inquiry stalled due to lack of cooperation from the government. In such a context, public trust in new surveillance-linked technologies is understandably fragile.
Why Did the Government Suddenly Step Back?
Interestingly, it was not public outrage alone that forced the government to soften its stand; it was also corporate resistance.
Apple made it clear that it would not permit forced system-level embedding of the app. Given India’s push to project itself as a key manufacturing hub under “Make in India,” the government found itself in a tight spot. A confrontation with Apple risked both economic optics and global embarrassment.
Soon after, the government issued clarifications stating that the app is optional, users may disable or delete it, and no forced pre-installation would occur.
This sudden reversal exposed the contradiction between official claims and earlier reported directions.
This Is Not India’s First Privacy Backtrack
This pattern is not new.Aadhaar was introduced as voluntary and later made effectively mandatory for banking, taxation, welfare, and identity verification.The RTI Act was diluted, reducing transparency while increasing citizen exposure.The Digital Personal Data Protection Act promises safeguards but grants wide exemptions to the state.Digi Yatra collects facial biometric data with limited clarity on long-term usage.
Pegasus spyware was allegedly deployed against journalists, activists, and opposition leaders – with no final accountability.
Against this background, citizens are not paranoid; they are responding to experience.
Control, Not Just Crime Prevention
The larger fear is not about fraud prevention. It is about control of expression.
In an era where mainstream television media is widely seen as compromised and print journalism is under economic pressure, the smartphone remains the last frontier of free expression. Messaging apps, social media, and independent content platforms are where dissent still finds oxygen. When the state seeks deeper access into smartphones, it is not merely regulating technology; it is potentially regulating thought, speech, and protest.
Countries like China, Russia, and North Korea already operate tightly controlled digital ecosystems where China runs government-mandated surveillance apps, Russia restricts foreign communication platforms, and North Korean phones reportedly auto-capture screenshots. India now stands at a dangerous crossroads, as the tools being introduced in the name of security closely resemble the digital control mechanisms of authoritarian states.
Democracy Cannot Run on Tracking Software
The Sanchar Saathi controversy is not merely about one app. It is about the direction India is taking. If security becomes the justification for unlimited surveillance, if consent is replaced by compulsion, and if transparency flows only one way, from citizen to state, then democracy itself becomes fragile.
Today it is a telecom app. Tomorrow it could be biometric cameras, behavioural tracking, or speech-monitoring software. When citizens surrender privacy without resistance, they also surrender power.
India must decide whether it wants to remain a constitutional democracy built on consent and liberty, or drift toward a digitally fenced state where every movement is mapped and monitored. Because once surveillance becomes normal, freedom becomes suspicious.
[MohdZiyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media.]