The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has issued a directive that is causing significant legal and ethical ripples across India. The order mandates the pre-installation of the government's Sanchar Saathi application on all mobile phones sold in the country. While the government's stated goals are to enhance telecom cybersecurity and combat counterfeit devices, the move is being scrutinized as a potential infringement on the fundamental right to privacy.
The Contradiction Between Order and Assurance
At the heart of the controversy lies a clear contradiction. The official directive, specifically Clause 7(b), requires manufacturers to ensure the Sanchar Saathi app is "readily visible" and that its functions cannot be "disabled or restricted." However, on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, Union Telecom Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia offered a verbal clarification, stating the app is "optional" and users are free to delete it.
This discrepancy creates a major grey area concerning user consent. Sachin Dhawan, Deputy Director at the tech policy think tank The Dialogue, identifies this as a critical fault line. He argues that if the written directive stands, user choice and control are severely compromised. Even with the Minister's assurance, Dhawan highlights the "default effect"—where an app pre-installed on a device is less likely to be removed by users, who typically stick with pre-set options, unlike actively choosing to download an app from a store.
Failing the Landmark Privacy Test
The directive faces a formidable constitutional challenge based on the Supreme Court's 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, which established privacy as a fundamental right. This judgment set a three-pronged test for any state intervention: legality (backed by law), necessity (for a legitimate state aim), and proportionality (rational means to achieve the aim).
Experts contend the Sanchar Saathi mandate stumbles on all counts. Technology lawyer Mishi Choudhary points out the lack of a statutory basis, stating, "Merely through an executive order, the State wants to enter our phones and lives." Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, who was involved in the privacy case, emphasizes that any curtailment of fundamental rights requires legislative action, not just notifications under rules. He draws a parallel to the Aadhaar scheme, which eventually needed a specific Act of Parliament.
Surveillance Fears and "Function Creep"
Privacy advocates raise alarms beyond the immediate consent issue. Raman Jit Singh Chima of Access Now notes the government already has less intrusive methods, like web portals and SMS, for verifying IMEI numbers to tackle counterfeit phones. He warns that a state-mandated app creates a single point of failure vulnerable to hackers.
A predominant fear is "function creep"—where data collected for one purpose is later used for another. The Sanchar Saathi app requests permissions for location, camera, and call logs. Choudhary warns this scale of access raises serious concerns about potential mass surveillance, tracking, and profiling. Chima adds that even if the current purpose is accepted, the app "creates architecture for future surveillance."
The directive allows a 90-day compliance window. However, in the absence of a fully trusted data protection regime, the move is viewed with deep suspicion. Choudhary connects this to the recent Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, arguing that making an app mandatory and initially undeletable violates the very spirit of consent central to the data protection law.
