Context
- Media reports suggested the Indian government considered seeking smartphone source code access.
- Reports also mentioned prior government notification before major software updates.
- The Union government refuted claims of mandating public disclosure of source code.
What is Source Code
- Source code is the core set of instructions operating software and digital systems.
- Smartphone manufacturers modify base software, including open-source Android, for proprietary functions.
- Companies guard source code for commercial competitiveness and cybersecurity protection.
- Full visibility of source code can expose vulnerabilities to malicious cyberattacks and data breaches.
Why the Issue is Controversial
- Disclosure of source code outside companies is globally uncommon, except in limited defence contexts.
- Even countries like China have not received Apple’s complete source code, despite regulatory pressures.
- Mandatory exposure of internal code significantly increases risk of exploitation by attackers.
- Previous controversy arose when the Department of Telecommunications sought pre-installation of the Sanchar Saathi app.
- That order faced criticism for potential surveillance risks and third-party security vulnerabilities.
- Source code disclosure is seen as far more intrusive than application-level compliance requirements.
Government’s Position and Regulatory Background
- In 2023, the National Centre for Communication Security finalised ITSAR standards for consumer telecom equipment.
- ITSARs operate under the Mandatory Testing and Certification of Telecommunication Equipment (MTCTE) framework.
- MTCTE originates from the Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2017.
- After the Telecommunications Act, 2023, smartphones were shifted away from MTCTE oversight.
- Certification responsibility moved to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Bureau of Indian Standards.
- MeitY stated it is maintaining an open mind, with no final decision taken.
Concerns Raised by Civil Society
- The Internet Freedom Foundation questioned lack of transparent consultations.
- It highlighted that draft ITSAR documents remain publicly available.
- IFF demanded disclosure of meeting records and open public consultations.
Conclusion
- The debate reflects tensions between national security, digital sovereignty, industry confidence, and user privacy.
- Transparency and proportional regulation remain central to maintaining trust in India’s digital governance framework.
