The Indian government has abruptly reversed a directive that would have required smartphone manufacturers to pre-install a state-developed cybersecurity application, Sanchar Saathi, on all new devices sold in the country.
The original order, issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on 28 November 2025, informally instructed major companies including Apple, Samsung, and Xiaomi to preload the app within 90 days, with some reports suggesting the software would have been non-removable. This mandate was swiftly revoked on 3 December 2025 following a widespread backlash from domestic political opponents, privacy advocates, and global technology giants, who collectively warned that the measure risked enabling expanded government surveillance.
The government had initially framed the application, whose name translates to “Communication Partner,” as a crucial tool for enhancing cybersecurity and combating widespread digital fraud. Officials stated the app’s primary functions were to allow users to block and track lost or stolen phones using their International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), report suspected fraudulent communications, and verify the authenticity of used devices. The mandate was justified by the need to safeguard citizens from buying non-genuine handsets and to address the issue of spoofed or tampered IMEI numbers, which pose a serious threat to telecom cybersecurity.
However, the directive was met with an immediate and forceful outcry. Privacy advocates and opposition leaders quickly condemned the requirement, warning that forcing the installation of a government-backed app, especially one that could not be disabled, effectively transformed personal smartphones into potential vessels for state surveillance. Senior political figures called for a debate on the legal authority for mandating a non-removable app, expressing grave fears that such compulsory software could contain a backdoor, thereby compromising the fundamental data and privacy of users. Industry experts cited Russia’s requirement to preload a state-backed messenger application as the only known international precedent for such a broad mandate.
The controversy was compounded by strong resistance from international tech manufacturers. According to sources familiar with the matter, both Apple and Samsung had reportedly drafted plans to refuse compliance with the order. Apple, in particular, was unwilling to comply with the directive, citing its global policy against pre-installing third-party applications, including those developed by governments, as this could compromise the security architecture of its iOS operating system. This stance by major global players likely played a significant role in forcing the swift government U-turn, as reported by Reuters.
In its statement confirming the reversal, the Ministry of Communications claimed the decision was made due to the application’s “increasing acceptance” and strong voluntary adoption. The Ministry noted that the app had already been downloaded by 14 million users and that a surge of 600,000 new registrations had occurred in just one day, an uptake increase the government felt negated the need for a mandatory pre-installation. Officials stressed that the app was secure, purely intended to protect users from cybercriminals, and was removable by users, a clarification that contradicted earlier reports about the original non-deletable mandate.
Despite the government’s justification focusing on the app’s popularity, the sudden reversal within days of the order being made public is widely interpreted as a climb-down in the face of intense domestic political pressure and the refusal of major international manufacturers to cooperate. Tech experts generally welcomed the decision, with one analyst stating that the fundamental problem was not the goal of improving mobile security, but the implementation—which lacked transparency, independent auditing, and user control, according to SC Media.
While digital rights groups welcomed the swift withdrawal, they stressed the need for the publication of an official legal order to formally confirm the decision. The entire episode highlighted the fragility of policy-making in the highly sensitive digital space and underscored the constant tension between national cybersecurity goals and the protection of citizen privacy in one of the world’s largest and most rapidly growing smartphone markets.