From Sanchar Saathi to Permanent Tracking: Are We Entering ‘1984’ Era by George Orwell?

"Big Brother is watching you." George Orwell’s chilling prophecy in 1984 described a dystopia where the state’s gaze was inescapable, penetrating even the most private corners of human existence. For decades, we read it as fiction; today, in the world’s largest democracy, it risks becoming an administrative directive. The delicate balance between national security and individual privacy in India is once again teetering on a razor’s edge. The, recent developments regarding the Sanchar Saathi initiative and a subsequent, more covert proposal for permanent location tracking mark a profound shift in how the Indian state views the digital footprint of its citizens.

The Sanchar Saathi Debacle: A Brief Overview

The controversy erupted late last month when the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) issued a directive mandating that all new smartphones sold in India must come pre-installed with the government’s "Sanchar Saathi" application. Ostensibly designed to empower users to track lost phones and verify the authenticity of used devices, the mandatory nature of the order immediately raised red flags.Critics, including opposition leaders and digital rights groups, argued that a government-mandated app with deep system privileges could easily function as a "backdoor" for state surveillance. Congress leader K.C. Venugopal stated that the move was "beyond unconstitutional" and that "Big Brother cannot watch us," emphasizing that the Right to Privacy is "an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution."

The backlash was swift and severe. Industry giants and civil society pointed out that forcing an app onto consumer devices violated the principle of user consent. Following intense political pressure and public outcry which was labeled by some as a "digital rights victory"—the government withdrew the mandatory installation order on December 4, 2025, clarifying that the app would remain voluntary. However, as the dust settled on this public retreat, a far more intrusive proposal came to light, suggesting the Sanchar Saathi episode was merely the tip of the iceberg.

The New Surveillance Proposal: Always-On Tracking

According to exclusive reports by Reuters and documents reviewed by industry insiders, the Indian government is currently weighing a proposal that would fundamentally alter the architecture of smartphone privacy. The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), which represents major telecom providers, has proposed mandating that all smartphones sold in India have their "Assisted GPS" (A-GPS) location services permanently enabled. Unlike traditional cell-tower triangulation, which provides a general location within a few hundred meters, A-GPS utilizes satellite data combined with cellular networks to pinpoint a user's location to within a few meters. The proposal reportedly demands that this feature be "hardwired" into the device's software, denying users the ability to turn it off. This would effectively turn every smartphone in India into a permanent, high-precision tracking beacon, broadcasting the user's movements to the network and by extension, the state for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Industry Pushback: Apple, Google, and Samsung Protest

The reaction from Silicon Valley and Seoul has been one of alarmed resistance. Apple, Google, and Samsung; fierce competitors in the marketplace have seemingly united in their opposition to this proposal. In meetings with government officials, executives from these companies have reportedly argued that such a mandate would be unprecedented globally.Their primary contention is that removing the "off switch" for location services compromises the core security architecture of modern mobile operating systems. If a device is engineered to constantly broadcast its precise location without user consent, it creates a vulnerability that could be exploited not just by the government, but by hackers, foreign adversaries, and stalkers. These companies have highlighted that no other democracy in the world enforces such a draconian requirement, warning that it could fracture the global supply chain and force manufacturers to build "surveillance-ready" devices exclusively for the Indian market.

Constitutional Crisis: Violating the Right to Privacy

Legal experts and advocates argue that this proposal is a direct assault on the Constitution of India. In the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India judgment of 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The court established a three-part test for any state intervention into privacy: legality (existence of a law), necessity (a legitimate state aim), and proportionality (the means must be proportional to the goal).

Advocates contend that a blanket mandate for always-on tracking fails the "proportionality" test. While national security is a legitimate aim, subjecting 1.4 billion citizens to permanent surveillance to catch a handful of criminals is akin to "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut," a phrase often cited in privacy jurisprudence. By treating every citizen as a potential suspect whose location must be constantly monitored, the state effectively reverses the presumption of innocence.

The Patriot Act Parallel: Creating a Surveillance State

The PATRIOT Act was passed just six weeks after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Congress was bullied into passing the legislation by the Bush Administration during a period of intense national fear, with the Administration implying that members who voted against the Act would be blamed for any further attacks. The Senate version was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings, and in the House, the leadership threw out a carefully constructed compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version, with neither discussion nor amendments permitted. Members barely had time to read the thick bill before being forced to cast an up-or-down vote. Like India's current surveillance proposals, the PATRIOT Act vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on citizens while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act made it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities held by third parties, including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers. The result was unchecked government power to examine individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. 

Similarly, India's proposed always-on location tracking would eliminate user notification. The government has requested that smartphones be prevented from displaying notifications when location access is being requested, preventing citizens from knowing they are being monitored. The PATRIOT Act's "sneak and peek" provision allowed the government to search property without notifying the owner at least until long after the search had been executed, violating the "knock and announce" principle that has been part of common law for centuries. This undermines a crucial check and balance: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

The Data Protection Vacuum

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this development is the legal vacuum in which it is occurring. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, while passed by Parliament, has faced criticism for its broad exemptions granted to the state. Section 17 of the Act allows the central government to exempt its agencies from the law's provisions in the interest of "sovereignty and integrity of India" or "security of the State." Without a robust, independent Data Protection Board or judicial oversight mechanism to review government surveillance requests, there is no guarantee that this precise location data will be safe. There are no clear protocols on who can access this data, how long it can be stored, or how it is protected from leaks. In essence, the government is proposing to collect the most sensitive data point a person generates that is their physical location, without a corresponding legal framework to protect it from misuse. Until these safeguards are in place, the proposal remains a loaded gun pointed at the civil liberties of every Indian citizen. "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell, 1984.