A fresh regulatory battle has erupted in India's technology sector, pitting two powerful industry groups against each other over a new government mandate. The contentious issue is the recent directive from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) requiring mandatory SIM binding for over-the-top (OTT) communication platforms.
The Opposing Camps: Tech Giants vs Telecom Operators
On one side is the Broadband India Forum (BIF), representing major technology firms like Meta (parent of WhatsApp) and Google. On the other is the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), the influential body for telecom service providers including Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea. Their starkly different reactions to the DoT's November 28, 2025, circular have brought the debate into the open.
BIF has raised "serious concerns" and urged the government to pause the implementation, calling for immediate stakeholder consultations. In contrast, COAI has welcomed the guidelines, stating that linking a user's SIM to their messaging app will create a reliable connection between the user, their number, and device, helping curb spam, fraudulent calls, and financial scams.
What the New SIM Binding Rules Entail
The DoT's directive mandates that app-based communication services—such as WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Snapchat, ShareChat, JioChat, and Arattai—must remain continuously linked to the specific SIM card used during registration. Users will have a 90-day window to comply. After this period, accessing these apps will require the original, active SIM card to be present in the device.
A significant technical change involves the web and desktop versions of these apps. Under the new rules, platforms must automatically log users out every six hours. To log back in, users will need to scan a QR code, a process that inherently requires the linked SIM to be active in a mobile device.
Core of the Controversy: Jurisdiction and Overreach
While acknowledging the "well-intentioned" goal of reducing cyber fraud, BIF has challenged the directive on multiple fronts. The forum argues it raises major questions about jurisdiction, consumer impact, and technical feasibility.
BIF contends that the Telecommunications Act does not authorize the regulation of OTT platforms, nor does it provide a legal basis to impose telecom-style mandates on them. The body labeled the move a "problematic instance of regulatory overreach" executed without legislative sanction or stakeholder engagement.
Furthermore, BIF criticized the short implementation timeline and the lack of public consultation or user-impact assessment. It warned that by targeting only a select set of applications, the policy might simply push bad actors to platforms not covered by the rules, negating the intended security benefits.
The forum has formally requested the DoT to suspend the current deadlines, form a technical working group with operating system providers and security experts, and develop a more proportionate framework.
As the 90-day compliance clock ticks, this clash between tech and telecom giants highlights a fundamental regulatory dilemma in the digital age: balancing user security with innovation and practical feasibility. The government's next move will be closely watched by millions of Indian users and the global tech industry.
