English editorials slam Sanchar Saathi ‘bad governance’, Hindi dailies yet to speak up

Earlier this week, the Department of Telecommunications issued a sweeping directive to all smartphone manufacturers to preinstall the Sanchar Saathi app on new mobile handsets from March 2026 under the Telecom Cyber Security Rules, 2024. Manufacturers have been asked to submit a compliance report to the department within 120 days. 

Some of India’s major English-language newspapers have expressed strong opinions in their editorials today against the government’s bid to pre-install the Sanchar Saathi app on new devices, offering both privacy concerns and questioning the economics of such a directive. Major Hindi dailies, however, are yet to express a view on the issue. 

This order has not been well received on social media either. Many expressed serious concerns about privacy, except for a few. Union minister for communications Jyotiraditya Scindia had tried to put out the fire, insisting that while the app must be pre-loaded, users can still remove it. Speaking to the press yesterday, he said, “It will stay dormant.” Challenging the growing narrative during Question Hour in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, he reiterated, “Snooping is neither possible nor will happen with the Sanchar Saathi app.” 

But the minister’s claims were contradicted by his own ministry’s directive. As Clause 7(b) notes: “Ensure that the pre-installed Sanchar Saathi application is readily visible and accessible to the end users at the time of first use or device setup and that its functionalities are not disabled or restricted.”     

Even major smartphone makers are reportedly concerned by this directive. According to The Indian Express this morning, Apple and Google – smartphone makers and owners of the two most popular operating systems, iOS and Android respectively – are planning to “push back on the government’s directive” because of “concerns around privacy and system security”. 

The Indian Express

In an editorial headlined ‘Government forcing down Sanchar Saathi app erodes privacy, hurts business’, the Indian Express called the government’s directive “not only bad governance but also bad economics,” adding that “a diktat to manufacturers to pre-install this government-backed app raises serious apprehensions of surveillance and intrusion.” It challenges the logic of Scindia's assurances that the app is “optional”, stating: “The idea of consent revolves around opting in, not opting out, a cornerstone of privacy as a basic right.” 

The editorial also questions the economics of this move, expressing how it could harm the ability of companies like Apple to do business in India, a grave concern given how “roughly 20 per cent of the global iPhone production capacity is in India.” 

The editorial notes: “To ram this app through isn’t exactly helping their ease of doing business. Reports say the manufacturers are planning to oppose the government’s directions. Before this goes to court, the government should rescind this order.”

The Hindu

In an editorial headlined, “Zero stars: On the Sanchar Saathi app”, The Hindu begins with a discussion on the “growing sophistication of cybercrimes”, but proceeds to discuss the two directives the DoT issued on SIM Binding (November 28) and the mandatory pre-installation of the Sanchar Saathi app (December 1) in all new devices by March 2026. 

“While the first directive is a security patch which could inconvenience WhatsApp/Internet messaging users, the second is reminiscent of the saying, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. The solution to the problem of counterfeit handsets and spoofed IMEI numbers is a cure that could potentially be more damaging than the disease,” it noted. 

The editorial challenges Clause 7(b) of the rules, and warns about the “potential for misuse of this app for state surveillance”, adding that this is “no empty fear” considering what the state has done using the Pegasus software to target journalists, activists and political opponents. It concludes by citing the Supreme Court's KS Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, which states that any attempts to invade privacy must satisfy the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. 

“The government already possesses less intrusive means to verify device genuineness. The Sanchar Saathi web portals, SMS-based checks, and USSD codes should suffice. By ignoring these less invasive alternatives, the directive on Sanchar Saathi fails the proportionality standard,” it states.  

The Times of India 

In its editorial, headlined 'Call Back', the Times of India takes a slightly softer tone, but also says that the government's directive and the controversy surrounding it were “avoidable”. But it makes no bones about the fact that “making government apps mandatory outside an emergency is not a good idea”. As the editorial adds: “Phones are our private space, and one mandatory intrusion by the government raises fears of more in the future.”  

In a strange argument, the editorial justifies apps like Aarogya Setu and others required for accessing travel facilities such as airports and railway stations, despite well-founded privacy concerns. “Is Sanchar Saathi a similar crisis intervention? No. Then, let’s not make it compulsory… but let users decide whether they want it,” the editorial noted. 

The editorial also makes the economic case against this directive and notes that phone manufacturing has been one of India's more notable “post-pandemic success stories”. “To remain on this trajectory, more investments are needed, but jarring orders like this can be discouraging. Industry – especially foreign investors – is never comfortable with the feeling of overreach,” it notes. It concludes with a suggestion to the government, noting it must be “patient” with the app's growth, and “withdraw the order mandating its installation completely.”    

Hindustan Times

In a rather bland editorial, headlined ‘Securing cellphones’, the Hindustan Times notes that the directive’s stated objective of “curbing IMEI fraud and improving telecom security” is a “legitimate state aim”. Despite the objective contradiction between the government's ‘clarification’ over privacy concerns and the clause mandating that the app's “functionalities are not disabled or restricted”, the editorial takes comfort in the knowledge that Union communications minister Jyotiraditya Scindia quickly clarified the “matter”.

The only point at which the editorial challenges the government is when it raises legal challenges, especially in the context of the KS Puttaswamy order, which established privacy as a fundamental right and noted that any intrusion by the state must satisfy the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The editorial argues: “The mandate arguably satisfies the first two requirements but could fall afoul of the third. Systemic KYC failures remain unaddressed, and the app provides no functionality unavailable through existing, often simpler, channels.”

It concludes with a vanilla recommendation: “The ministry’s clarifications on Tuesday were much-needed, but it should also discuss its larger objective with all stakeholders, including phone makers.”   

In times of misinformation, you need news you can trust. We’ve got you covered. Subscribe to Newslaundry and power our work.