Context

• The Indian government’s abrupt decision to revoke its directive mandating the pre-installation of the Sanchar Saathi application exposed growing tensions between digital governance and constitutional freedoms.
• The rollback, prompted by criticism over privacy risks, opaque data collection, lack of consent, and potential surveillance, underscored the fragile balance between technological efficiency and civil liberties.
• The episode also highlighted the urgent need for a framework that embeds constitutional values within digital systems, an idea captured by digital constitutionalism.

The Case of Sanchar Saathi: A Trigger for Debate

• The Sanchar Saathi initiative was framed as a response to rising cybercrime, which increased from 15.9 lakh cases in 2023 to 20.4 lakh in 2024.
• Yet the requirement for mandatory installation raised concerns about state overreach.
• Pushback from privacy advocates, civil society, and global technology providers signalled growing unease with digital policies implemented without transparency or citizen consent.
• The incident demonstrated how digital interventions, even when introduced as public safety measures, can threaten individual autonomy when unchecked by constitutional safeguards.

Understanding Digital Constitutionalism

• Digital constitutionalism extends core constitutional values, liberty, dignity, equality, non-arbitrariness, accountability, and rule of law, into the digital sphere.
• This framework becomes essential as modern governance increasingly depends on biometric systems, artificial intelligence, predictive algorithms, and automated decision-making.
• These technologies influence daily life, from welfare distribution and KYC verification to job applications and political expression.
• Without oversight, power becomes concentrated in the hands of technology creators, enforcement agencies, and private corporations.
• Citizens are transformed into passive data subjects rather than active rights-holders, eroding democratic participation and transparency.

The New Architecture of Surveillance

• Contemporary surveillance is increasingly invisible and pervasive. Metadata collection, facial recognition, geolocation tracking, and behavioural analytics allow monitoring without physical presence.
• Such systems can discourage dissent, promote self-censorship, and undermine democratic culture.
• Although the Puttaswamy judgment established privacy as a fundamental right, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides broad government exemptions, weak oversight, and limited remedies.
• The spread of facial recognition technologies adds further risks. Studies show these systems disproportionately misidentify women, minorities, and people of colour, leading to discrimination and wrongful targeting.
• Despite international caution and restrictions, such technologies are expanding in India without strict legal limits, transparency mandates, or judicial review.

Algorithmic Power and the Crisis of Accountability

• Algorithms now influence welfare eligibility, law enforcement profiling, content moderation, and access to jobs or credit.
• These black box systems often operate without explanations, accountability, or avenues for appeal. Errors can lead to wrongful exclusion from welfare, unfair policing, or suppression of legitimate speech.
• India’s current legal framework, dominated by the Information Technology Act, 2000, focuses more on platform regulation than on safeguarding individual liberties.
• Existing judicial guidelines are fragmented, and remedies remain inaccessible for most citizens.
• This legal vacuum creates an environment where algorithmic systems can quietly violate equality, fairness, and due process.

The Democratic Paradox of the Digital Age

• Digital systems now shape rights and state power as profoundly as traditional institutions, yet they remain outside constitutional discipline.
• This mismatch threatens democratic accountability. As governance becomes more data-driven, constitutional values must be embedded directly into digital infrastructures to prevent the unchecked expansion of surveillance and administrative power. 

Towards a Model of Digital Constitutionalism

• A meaningful framework for digital constitutionalism requires institutional safeguards:
• Creation of an independent digital rights commission empowered to audit algorithms and investigate surveillance practices.
• Strict limits on surveillance based on necessity, proportionality, and judicial oversight.
• Mandatory public transparency reports, parliamentary scrutiny, and regular audits of high-risk AI systems.
• Guaranteed rights to explanation and appeal for automated decisions.
• Strong enforcement of purpose limitation, data minimisation, and penalties for misuse.
• Promotion of digital literacy as a tool for democratic empowerment.
• These measures would ensure that technology strengthens rather than weakens constitutional rights.

Conclusion

• As governance becomes increasingly algorithmic, freedom, equality, and privacy require stronger protection than ever before.
• Digital constitutionalism offers a pathway to ensure that technology remains a servant of the people, not an instrument of unregulated power.
• Embedding constitutional principles into digital systems is essential to preserving democratic life in the data-driven era.