A textbook case of governance by impulse

The government’s decision to reverse the order on pre-installation of the Sanchar Saathi app on all phones shows the pitfalls of arbitrary and ill-considered decision-making on matters of vital importance to people. The decision faced widespread criticism from the first day, and the government went through a series of flip-flops and cumulative climbdowns ending in its reversal. It first softened its position with the statement that those did not want the app could delete it. Then it said it could modify the decision based on public opinion. Within hours, it withdrew the order. It is clear that the all-round criticism, particularly the opposition from technology companies such as Apple and Google, forced the government to retract. The incident should serve as a lesson for the government, and even after withdrawal, it leaves some questions to be answered. 

The government claimed that the app would help counter cyber fraud, give better protection to phone users, and strengthen digital trust. But it violated some basic principles of cyber conduct and fundamental rights of citizens. The government had no right to implant the app in phones without the user’s consent. Minister for Communications Jyotiraditya Scindia said, after the decision became controversial, that the app was optional and those who did not want it could delete it. But the freedom to delete the app is not the same as the right not to have it on the phone without consent. The implant of the app would certainly have been a violation of the right to privacy, which is a fundamental right. It would also have given the government a backdoor entry into the citizen’s private world, and a means of surveillance over people. It amounted to the government posting a policeman or installing a camera in every home to prevent theft and robbery. It may be noted that the government had faced credible allegations of illegal surveillance of politicians and others using the Pegasus software. The implant of the app would also have helped the government to do political propaganda. 

The question remains why the government took the decision when there were much less objectionable methods to achieve the claimed objectives. The government acted in a hurry and arbitrarily on a matter on which it should have held wide consultations with all stakeholders, including people’s representatives, political parties, and technology companies, because the matter concerned the rights and lives of people. Considering the government’s record on such matters, it is likely that it took the decision to backtrack more because of the refusal of technology companies to comply with it than because of the backlash from others. Hopefully it will learn the right lessons from the controversy.