Former privacy judges question government’s Sanchar Saathi mandate decision

The government’s decision to withdraw its order requiring all smartphones sold in India to come pre-installed with Sanchar Saathi has drawn sharp criticism from former judges of the Supreme Court of India who had cemented privacy as a fundamental right. These jurists warn that the original mandate — even though rescinded — represented a serious intrusion into citizens’ digital autonomy.

Among those voicing alarm was B. N. Srikrishna, who led the committee that drafted the country’s first data-protection Bill. He argued that compelling pre-installation of a government-controlled app undermines the principles laid down in the landmark Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgement of 2017, which held that privacy is intrinsic to personal liberty. A second former judge expressed similar unease, suggesting that the government’s ability both to mandate installation and to control the app’s distribution blurred the line between legitimate cybersecurity measures and state surveillance.

The directive — issued 28 November 2025 — had required all smartphone manufacturers and importers to pre-load Sanchar Saathi on new devices within 90 days and deliver it to existing devices via over-the-air updates. Under the draft rule, users would reportedly have no ability to disable or delete the app.

Officials argued the app’s purpose was to help users block or track lost or stolen devices via their IMEI numbers and report fraudulent connections or calls, part of efforts to curb cybercrime and SIM-based scams. The government claimed 1.4 crore downloads had occurred, with more than 2,000 fraud incidents being reported daily, underscoring what it described as widespread public acceptance. Communications Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia had maintained the measure was meant for citizen protection rather than surveillance, emphasising the app’s optionality and stating that users were at liberty to delete it.

Legal experts and civil-liberties advocates warned, however, that pre-installation removes meaningful consent. “The executive should not be the maker and the checker both,” said technology lawyer Nikhil Narendran, calling for judicial oversight to safeguard citizens’ rights. They caution that such policies — especially without independent oversight or transparency on data storage and access — could push the nation toward what one described as an “Orwellian state.”

Despite the rollback, former judges warn the over-arching issue remains. They stress that any future attempt to mandate cybersecurity tools must respect the constitutional protections enshrined in Puttaswamy, ensuring that security does not come at the cost of personal liberties.