Sanchar Saathi app promises safer phones and fewer scams, cyber experts explain why its impact may be more complex than expected

“There is no snooping or call monitoring,” he said in remarks outside Parliament. He emphasised that the app is not compulsory to use. “If you do not want the app, do not activate it. If you want to delete it, delete it. If you do not register, it will stay inactive.” He described the app as something that will lie dormant unless a user chooses to use it, and said the goal is public protection, not surveillance.

Scindia also pointed to the sheer scale of digital crime India now faces. The numbers are startling. “In one year, in 2024 alone, our country had Rs 22,800 crore of frauds,” he said. His argument was that the same people who are concerned about rising fraud must also understand that tools like Sanchar Saathi can help protect them, especially when device theft and scam calls continue to increase.

What the app is designed to do

Once the government made its position clear, the focus shifted to a more practical question. Even if the app is well intentioned and optional to use, will it actually reduce scams? And is the device-level approach the most effective way to address such a large and sophisticated fraud ecosystem?

To answer this, Moneycontrol spoke to cybersecurity researchers, former security heads and digital rights experts who study cybercrime patterns and understand how modern scam networks operate. Their responses reveal a more layered picture, one that includes the strengths of Sanchar Saathi, its limitations and the deeper reforms India may need.

To begin with, it is important to understand what the Sanchar Saathi platform does. It was developed by the Department of Telecommunications and already functions nationwide. One of its main components is CEIR, the Central Equipment Identity Register, which keeps track of IMEI numbers. If someone loses a phone or it gets stolen, they can register the IMEI on the platform, and the phone can be blocked across all mobile networks. This means the device becomes unusable even if the SIM card is changed. This system has already helped block and recover lakhs of devices, according to government data, and gives users a quick and reliable way to protect their personal data.

The second part of Sanchar Saathi is Chakshu, a feature that lets users report suspicious calls, links or messages. Many scams begin with a simple interaction that tricks people into clicking a link or sharing personal information. Chakshu gives users a direct way to notify authorities about such attempts so patterns can be identified early.
These features serve a clear purpose. They make it easier for users to take action when something goes wrong. But whether pre-installing the app on every device translates into a significant drop in scams is a more complex question.

Why experts are cautious about its impact

Speaking to Moneycontrol, Venkata Satish Guttula, former Chief Information Security Officer at Rediff.com, said Sanchar Saathi can strengthen investigations and give law enforcement better tools for tracing criminals. According to him, the app can help in cases like digital arrest frauds where criminals use devices within India to threaten victims. With better visibility of device details, investigators can respond more effectively.

At the same time, he cautions against assuming that this will automatically reduce overall scam volume. Many of the biggest fraud operations that target Indians do not originate from regular mobile phones inside the country. “Sophisticated syndicates often use international numbers or disposable burner phones that bypass local telecom jurisdiction,” Guttula said. These criminals may operate from other countries, using cloud-based calling systems that allow thousands of calls per hour, none of which come from traditional smartphones.

He explains that modern scam networks often run on what are known as SIM farms. These are physical racks that can hold hundreds or thousands of SIM cards, controlled by software instead of human operators. Calls can be launched in bulk, and numbers can rotate constantly, making them extremely difficult to trace. Because the scammer is not dialing from a normal phone, a device-level app on the victim’s phone does not give any insight into where the fraud originates.

Guttula describes it simply. “The fraud often comes from a server or a rack of thousands of SIM cards rather than a single trackable handset. Because the fraud originates from a server or a rack of thousands of SIM cards rather than a single trackable handset the app will likely find itself monitoring a clean device while the actual attack vector remains invisible.”

He added that criminals will not sit still. “This shift renders the device centric approach largely ineffective and could nullify the safety benefits the mandate aims to provide.”

Guttula also discussed the limits of IMEI-based blocking. “Technical blocking on its own is not a significant challenge as we see companies like Apple effectively bricking stolen showroom devices instantly,” he said. But he warned that the real issue goes beyond criminals bypassing blocks. “The real danger is not just that criminals can bypass this with cloning but that we are handing the state a kill switch for a device used for everything from UPI payments to basic identity verification.”

He said the potential risks of misuse are not theoretical. “If the government has the unchecked power to disconnect a citizen from the digital network the potential for overreach and misuse becomes a far greater concern than phone theft itself.”

He also flagged the privacy implications of centralised data flows. “By mandating that every device feeds intimate data like location and call logs into one government server we are effectively bypassing user consent and centralizing risk rather than distributing it.”

He pointed out an even deeper worry. “The most concerning aspect is the legal framework where the government can exempt itself from liability under Section 17(2) of the DPDPA meaning if this infrastructure is breached the agency responsible could be immune from penalties.”

Experts say the real battle lies in networks, not devices

Digital rights advocate and senior technology lawyer Mishi Choudhary, Founder of SFLC.in, also shared her views with Moneycontrol. She believes the app focuses on the last link in the chain rather than the source. “Most large scale digital fraud depends on social engineering,” she said. This includes convincing users to share OTPs, install harmful apps or respond to emotional manipulation. According to her, a pre-installed app does not change the psychology or the tactics scammers use to deceive people.

She said global evidence suggests that countries fight fraud more successfully when the focus is on telecom networks and financial systems rather than on user devices. “Experience of other countries suggests that spam/SMS filtering and analytic, central IMEI & SIM blacklists and audited KYC at SIM issuance and during lifecycle may work better at the network level,” she said.

She added that fraud cannot be solved in silos. “Shared fraud intelligence across banks, wallets, and card networks can also be tried.”

Choudhary believes Sanchar Saathi is “a cosmetic solution on the least critical layer.” She warned that widespread pre-installation can have unintended consequences. “All it will do is result in function creep in the name of cyber security,” she said. “All such efforts start with block stolen phones, fight fraud and turn into track protest organizers, flag users with ‘suspicious’ patterns.”

She emphasised that the legal standards are not optional. “The app mandate gloriously fails the Puttaswamy tests,” she said. “Any pan India, undeletable app must clear a high bar on legality, necessity, and proportionality to avoid becoming another tool for mass surveillance which this fails.”

Choudhary also pointed out that digital safety tools must be evaluated against legal standards. She said any nationwide system, especially one installed on all devices, must meet the tests of legality, necessity and proportionality set by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy privacy judgment. She raised the concern that tools built for public safety sometimes expand in function over time, and stressed the importance of clear checks and transparent audits to avoid such drift.

Usefulness remains, but deeper reforms are needed

However, despite their concerns, both experts acknowledged the usefulness of certain parts of the app. Blocking a stolen phone quickly through CEIR helps millions of users. Reporting scam attempts through Chakshu allows authorities to identify fraud patterns sooner. Making these features easy to access can genuinely help individuals facing urgent issues.

The experts simply believe that while Sanchar Saathi plays an important role, it must work alongside deeper structural reforms to truly reduce fraud. India’s scam ecosystem is multi-layered. It involves thousands of phone numbers, cross-border call centres, weak telecom verification, gaps in financial tracking and widespread digital illiteracy. No single tool can address all of these.

Other countries have dealt with similar challenges. The most successful measures are those that combine strong telecom KYC, strict enforcement against SIM misuse, continuous monitoring of fraudulent patterns, cross-industry coordination between banks and telcos, and public awareness campaigns that teach users how to identify scams.

The reality is that digital crime evolves faster than regulation. Scam groups adopt new technology almost immediately. They shift from local numbers to international ones, from SIM cards to cloud calling, from basic phishing to sophisticated impersonation. Because of this, India needs multiple layers of defence working together.

Sanchar Saathi can form one layer. It can help users protect their phones. It can give police faster data during investigations. It can reduce the resale market for stolen phones. It can encourage people to report scams instead of ignoring them. But on its own, it cannot unwind the entire fraud ecosystem.

What India needs is a combination of device-level tools, stronger telecom controls, better financial safeguards and, most importantly, a system that identifies and shuts down fraud networks before they reach users.