India’s government has reversed its plan to compel smartphone makers to preload a state-run cybersecurity app, Sanchar Saathi, on all new devices—a directive that had triggered a fierce storm over surveillance concerns, political overreach, and the country’s unpredictable regulatory playbook.

The climbdown came barely a week after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration quietly informed major manufacturers—including Apple, Samsung, and Xiaomi—of a 90-day deadline to install the app on every new handset sold in the country.

The initial order, reported first by Reuters, required the tool to be permanently embedded and impossible for users to remove. This provision ignited fears that the government was edging closer to direct control over personal devices, reviving older debates about data protection and state intrusion that have followed New Delhi for years.

On Wednesday, the communications ministry issued a brief but decisive statement: “Government has decided not to make the pre-installation mandatory for mobile manufacturers.”

The short announcement capped 48 hours of political fire, industry backlash, and public unease.

The reversal is striking for several reasons. Only a day earlier, ministers had vigorously defended the mandate, insisting Sanchar Saathi’s purpose is limited to tracking stolen devices and blocking their misuse. They maintained that the app helps curb financial fraud linked to lost or cloned phones. What rattled companies and privacy groups was the requirement that manufacturers make the app impossible to disable—a feature that inevitably raised suspicions over long-term intentions.

Political pushback intensified the pressure

Opposition parties seized on the issue almost immediately. Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala submitted a notice to Parliament demanding that the government explain the legal basis for enforcing a non-removable application on citizens. He warned that once such an app becomes mandatory, users cannot know what channels it may open in the future, saying this type of tool could have a “backdoor” that leaves personal data exposed.

Newspaper editorials widened the criticism, calling the directive heavy-handed and unnecessary. Civil society groups argued that forcing a state-linked app onto every device would lower user autonomy and set a dangerous precedent for broader digital access.

Online, discussions questioned why the government needed a compulsory pre-installation when the app was already available for voluntary download. Many users feared the plan would open the door to greater monitoring of personal communication and location data.

Tech giants were poised to reject the mandate

Sources familiar with discussions told Reuters that Apple and Samsung were preparing not to comply with the order. Both companies have long taken firm positions on user control and privacy, and a non-removable government app would have placed them at odds with their global product frameworks.

India is now one of the world’s biggest smartphone markets, and companies treat its regulatory environment carefully. A move that forces hardware changes at the manufacturing level—particularly one involving an undeletable state-linked app—would have magnified operational costs and created a challenge across supply chains.

Mishi Choudhary, a prominent technology lawyer and policy advocate, said the episode underscores a broader trend: “India’s highly unpredictable regulatory framework presents constant challenges for business that values predictability.”

She welcomed the withdrawal but warned that policy swings without a clear foundation weaken confidence among global companies.

Her concerns echo past events. India was forced to abandon a laptop import licensing rule last year after sustained intervention from U.S. officials and industry lobbies. That policy would have required import permits for devices entering the country, a move that caused immediate concern among American and Asian manufacturers.

Government shifts tone, cites rising app adoption

After the backlash gathered pace, the government attributed its U-turn to “growing popularity” of Sanchar Saathi, saying more than 600,000 people downloaded the app since Tuesday. Officials described the tool as secure and said it was created solely to protect users from cybercriminals, fraudulent SIM registration, and phone theft.

Sanchar Saathi allows users to block stolen devices, check associated SIM cards, and identify suspicious activity. Devices flagged through the app can be disabled across Indian networks to prevent misuse—useful in tackling fraudulent calls and digital scams.

The government’s latest position suggests that voluntary adoption may be enough to advance what it sees as public-interest cybersecurity goals. Still, many observers believe the deeper reason for the retreat lies in the rapidly escalating political and commercial fallout.

Global comparisons and a longer pattern of privacy battles

Modi’s planned requirement had almost no global precedent, according to sources. The closest parallel comes from Russia. In August, Moscow ordered all smartphones and tablets to include MAX—a state-linked messenger app commonly used by government agencies and seen by opponents as potentially intrusive. That policy drew immediate concern from digital rights groups over its potential use for monitoring.

India’s history with digital privacy debates made the latest uproar even more charged. In 2020, the government mandated the use of a COVID-19 contact-tracing app among office workers. After widespread uproar over privacy and data transparency, authorities scaled it back from a requirement to a recommendation.

The country has also spent years working through data protection bills, with earlier versions drawing objections from both privacy experts and industry because of provisions that allowed wide government access to user information.

A policy episode that raises broader questions

For now, the decision to withdraw the Sanchar Saathi mandate removes one immediate flashpoint. But it also exposes persistent tension between the government’s desire for tighter digital security controls and the public’s push for stronger privacy protections.

It also amplifies concerns among manufacturers who say they need predictable regulations to plan investments and product cycles. India’s booming smartphone market depends heavily on foreign companies. Sudden shifts in policy—particularly those that require hardware-level alterations—risk sending signals that complicate future planning.

The latest U-turn brings relief for manufacturers and digital rights advocates, but it revives a familiar debate: how a fast-growing digital economy balances cybersecurity needs with personal freedoms, user control, and industry stability.

Bank of America has recently endorsed a modest allocation to digital assets for its wealth management clients, recommending 1% to 4% of portfolios depending on individual risk tolerance and interest in thematic innovation like crypto.

This guidance applies to clients on its Merrill, Bank of America Private Bank, and Merrill Edge platforms, marking a shift from prior restrictions where advisers could only discuss crypto upon client request.

Starting January 2026, the bank’s over 15,000 wealth advisers will proactively recommend regulated crypto products, including coverage of four major spot Bitcoin ETFs from BlackRock, Bitwise, Fidelity, and Grayscale beginning January 5.

Chris Hyzy, CIO of Bank of America Private Bank, described this as suitable for investors comfortable with volatility, emphasizing regulated vehicles and diversified exposure to balance opportunities and risks.

This aligns with a wave of institutional adoption. Modest for thematic innovation; ETF-focused. Morgan Stanley, views Bitcoin as “digital gold”; for opportunistic portfolios. BlackRock improves long-term portfolio efficiency. Fidelity higher for younger, risk-tolerant investors.

Vanguard Now allows crypto ETFs/mutual funds on platform as of December 2025. This move reflects growing mainstream acceptance of crypto amid Bitcoin’s volatility down ~10% over the past year after peaking above $126,000 in October 2025, but it underscores caution—retail investors have faced significant ETF losses recently.

A Bitcoin ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund) is a regulated investment vehicle that tracks the price of Bitcoin and trades on traditional stock exchanges (e.g., NYSE, Nasdaq). It allows investors to get exposure to Bitcoin’s price movements without directly buying, storing, or securing actual Bitcoin.

IBIT (BlackRock), FBTC (Fidelity), GBTC (Grayscale), ARKB (Ark/21Shares), BITB (Bitwise), HODL (VanEck), BTCO (Invesco), BRRR (Valkyrie), EZBC (Franklin), BTCW (WisdomTree). Holds actual Bitcoin in cold storage via a regulated custodian.

Since January 2024, spot Bitcoin ETFs dominate inflows and trading volume. Futures ETFs are now a small minority. The ETF calculates its NAV once per day using a benchmark price (e.g., CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate or CoinMetrics index).

ETF market price ? NAV ± tiny premium/discount usually < 0.1% because of the creation/redemption arbitrage. Tax Implications, treated like stocks: capital gains/losses when you sell the ETF shares.

No K-1 forms unlike some crypto LPs or the old GBTC trust). Held in IRAs/401(k)s is huge advantage no wallet needed, no taxable events when the ETF buys/sells Bitcoin internally.

A spot Bitcoin ETF is the easiest, most regulated way for traditional investors especially institutions and retirement accounts to get Bitcoin exposure in 2025. It behaves almost exactly like owning Bitcoin price-wise, but with the legal structure and convenience of a stock.

The creation/redemption mechanism performed daily by big banks keeps the price tightly aligned with real Bitcoin — usually within a few basis points.