Amnesty International has criticized India’s ongoing review of a proposed location-tracking plan as “deeply concerning,” warning that it could entrench intrusive digital surveillance in the world’s largest democracy. The human rights group argues that the review, framed as a technical exercise to refine monitoring tools, risks normalizing mass tracking of people’s movements without clear legal safeguards or public accountability.
The statement lands at a moment when Indian authorities are seeking to expand their digital capabilities in the name of security and public safety, while civil liberties advocates are pressing for stronger protections under data and privacy law. By challenging the opacity of the review process, Amnesty is signaling that the direction New Delhi takes now could shape the balance between security and rights across India’s rapidly digitizing society.
Amnesty’s Criticism of the Plan
Amnesty International has publicly described India’s review of its location-tracking plan as “deeply concerning,” a phrase it uses to underscore the scale of potential rights violations if the framework moves ahead without robust checks. In its reaction to the government’s move, the organization warns that a system designed to collect and analyze real-time location data across devices could enable pervasive monitoring of individuals’ daily lives, from commutes and medical visits to political meetings and religious gatherings. By characterizing the review as “deeply concerning”, Amnesty is effectively arguing that the risks are not hypothetical but immediate, given India’s scale and the state’s existing surveillance powers.
At the heart of Amnesty’s critique is the threat to individual privacy that comes with widespread, state-directed location tracking in a country of more than a billion people. The group stresses that location data is inherently sensitive, since it can reveal intimate patterns about a person’s associations, beliefs and vulnerabilities when collected continuously and linked across platforms. It is urging Indian authorities to put in place explicit safeguards against arbitrary surveillance in the digital space, including clear legal limits on data collection, independent oversight of security agencies and meaningful avenues for redress. For ordinary users of smartphones, connected cars and popular apps such as WhatsApp, Paytm or Ola, the stakes lie in whether their movements can be quietly mapped and stored by the state without their knowledge or consent.
Background on India’s Location-Tracking Review
The Indian government has initiated a formal review of enhanced location-tracking mechanisms that would allow authorities to obtain more precise and timely information on the whereabouts of users across mobile networks and internet-connected devices. Officials have framed the exercise as a way to modernize existing systems so that law enforcement and emergency services can respond more quickly to incidents, including natural disasters, serious crimes and threats to critical infrastructure. According to coverage of the review, the plan is tied to a broader effort to integrate telecom data, device identifiers and application-level information into a more unified framework, which would give agencies a clearer picture of how people move through both physical and digital spaces.
Within this review, the stated aim is to bolster national security through real-time user data collection that can be accessed across devices and platforms, rather than through fragmented, case-by-case requests. Authorities argue that such capabilities are increasingly necessary in an era of encrypted messaging, cross-border cybercrime and coordinated attacks that can unfold in minutes. The current process marks a progression from earlier surveillance policy drafts that focused more narrowly on telecom interception and metadata retention, signaling a shift toward more granular, location-based oversight. For technology companies that operate mapping services, ride-hailing platforms or fitness trackers, the review raises questions about how far they may be required to reconfigure their systems to feed into state-run tracking tools.
Human Rights Implications
Amnesty International’s concerns extend beyond privacy to the broader spectrum of international human rights standards that India has pledged to uphold. The organization warns that a location-tracking framework built around continuous or easily triggered monitoring could infringe on rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, since people may self-censor their movements if they believe they are being watched. In its broader warnings on India’s digital surveillance trends, Amnesty has highlighted how expansive data collection, when combined with weak oversight, can chill dissent and erode democratic participation over time.
The potential for misuse is particularly acute for activists, journalists and minority communities who already face heightened scrutiny from security agencies. A system that allows authorities to reconstruct a protest organizer’s movements, map the networks of a human rights lawyer or track the visits of a religious minority leader to community centers could be used to intimidate or selectively target them. Amnesty is effectively warning that without strict purpose limitations and independent checks, location tracking could become a tool for profiling and discrimination, rather than a narrowly tailored instrument for public safety. For marginalized groups that have historically struggled to challenge state overreach, the prospect of being constantly locatable by authorities raises the risk that surveillance will deepen existing inequalities.
Government and Stakeholder Responses
Indian authorities have defended the review as a necessary step to keep pace with evolving security threats and to improve public safety outcomes in a densely populated, increasingly urbanized country. Officials point to scenarios such as tracing missing persons, coordinating disaster relief or responding to coordinated attacks as examples where rapid access to accurate location data can save lives. They argue that the review is not about indiscriminate spying but about updating technical standards and legal procedures so that agencies can act quickly when there is a legitimate need. In this framing, the government presents itself as balancing security imperatives with privacy, even as rights groups question whether that balance is being struck in practice.
Technology industry stakeholders, including telecom operators and digital service providers, have responded by flagging both implementation challenges and reputational risks. Companies that run large-scale platforms, from navigation services like Google Maps to ride-hailing apps such as Uber and Ola, would likely need to adjust their data retention policies, application programming interfaces and internal compliance systems to accommodate expanded state access. Some industry voices have cautioned that unclear rules could expose firms to conflicting obligations under India’s data protection regime and international privacy expectations, particularly for services used by global customers. Since the review announcement on December 8, 2025, has shifted the debate from static policy talk to concrete technical requirements, these stakeholders are pressing for transparent guidelines that spell out what data must be shared, under what conditions and with which safeguards.
Potential Global and Domestic Impacts
The trajectory of India’s location-tracking plan is likely to resonate far beyond its borders, given the country’s size, technological capacity and influence among other democracies in the Global South. If New Delhi proceeds with a model that normalizes broad, real-time access to location data with limited oversight, it could provide a template for governments that seek to expand surveillance while pointing to India as a precedent. Conversely, if the review results in strong, codified safeguards and independent checks, it could demonstrate that large, security-conscious states can still place meaningful limits on digital monitoring. International observers are watching closely because the outcome will help define how emerging economies reconcile rapid digitization with commitments to civil and political rights.
Domestically, the review has already prompted pushback from civil society groups that echo Amnesty’s warnings about unchecked surveillance and the erosion of privacy. Digital rights advocates, lawyers’ collectives and grassroots organizations are calling for public consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and judicially enforceable limits on any new tracking powers. Their concern is that once a comprehensive location-tracking infrastructure is in place, it will be difficult to roll back, even if abuses emerge. International coverage has framed the issue as a test of how India balances security, technology and equality, with one report on society and equity impacts stressing that the people most exposed to intrusive monitoring are often those with the least ability to challenge it. For residents navigating daily life through smartphones, digital payments and connected services, the outcome of this debate will shape whether the infrastructure that powers convenience and safety also becomes an architecture of constant surveillance.
