Shashi Tharoor doubts the Center's reasoning and criticizes the mandatory Sanchar Saathi app

The Centre’s order requiring manufacturers to pre-install the Sanchar Saathi app on every new smartphone — and push it to existing phones via software updates with no uninstall option has ignited one of the fiercest privacy debates India has seen since the Pegasus controversy.

Issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), the mandate is being framed by the government as a cybersecurity and anti-fraud measure, but the Opposition and digital-rights experts argue that it opens the door to unprecedented state surveillance.

The debate turned highly political within hours.

Shashi Tharoor said cybersecurity tools can be valuable but only if voluntary, stressing that compulsion without public explanation “is troubling in a democracy.” Priyanka Gandhi Vadra called the move a violation of the right to privacy and described the app as “a snooping tool.” Karti Chidambaram labelled it “Pegasus plus plus,” claiming it could place the government “inside every citizen’s phone.” Similar language dominated social media, where users equated the mandate with state spying, describing it as “Big Brother” and “Swadeshi surveillance.”

Those defending the policy paint a very different picture.

BJP MP Shashank Mani Tripathi dismissed fears as paranoia, calling Sanchar Saathi safer than third-party apps and saying the tool will “digitally protect every aspect of citizen security.” In the government’s view, the app will help block stolen phones, detect counterfeit devices, and curb SIM-based fraud, and therefore must be compulsory to be effective.

The core anxiety stems from the permissions Sanchar Saathi requires. Privacy researchers note that the app can access call and message information, camera, device identifiers, location data and network details — permissions that can support anti-theft features but can also enable state-level telemetry and behavioural monitoring. The government’s command that the app must be visible, cannot be restricted and cannot be uninstalled amplifies suspicion that this goes far beyond cybersecurity.

The confrontation now sits at the intersection of surveillance, digital autonomy and national security. In a country where smartphones are the most private window into daily life, critics argue that trust cannot be replaced with enforcement. The debate has quickly escalated from concerns about digital rights to a wider ideological clash over how far the state can enter personal space in the name of safety.