Across Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and other major cities, mobile phone users have noticed a quiet but striking change over the past few weeks. Calls from unfamiliar numbers no longer arrive as anonymous
digits alone. Instead, a name flashes on the screen, sometimes a full name, sometimes a business identity, even when the number is not saved in contacts.
India has rolled out a built-in alternative to caller ID apps called CNAP (Calling Name Presentation), perhaps even a system that blocks spam and scam calls automatically. But will it work? What users are seeing is not a spam filter, but a new trust signal, one that can inform, but not necessarily protect.
While CNAP marks an important evolution in how calls are identified in India, it also exposes a gap between what people think the feature does and what it actually delivers.
What You Should Know About CNAP
Calling Name Presentation is a telecom-network-level feature that displays the registered name of a caller on the recipient’s phone. Unlike third-party apps such as Truecaller, Showcaller, and BharatCaller, which rely on crowdsourced data or user reports, CNAP pulls information directly from telecom databases linked to SIM registration and KYC records.
In simple terms, if a number is registered in the name of “Ramesh Kumar” with a telecom operator, that name is displayed when the call is made. The process happens within the network, not through an external app, and does not require internet access or user installation. Telecom companies use their own match the phone number with the name registered at the time of a SIM card was issued.
This makes CNAP fundamentally different from apps like Truecaller. It does not analyse call behaviour, track spam patterns, or flag fraud risk. It merely answers one question: who does this number officially belong to?
Reports suggest the CNAP framework will be rolled out in phases across the country, with the pilot launch in October 2025, and an all-India release expected by March 31, 2026.
Why Telecom Operators Rolled It Out Now
India has one of the world’s highest volumes of phone-based fraud. According to government data and industry estimates, Indians lose thousands of crores annually to scams involving fake bank officials, delivery fraud, impersonation calls, and social engineering schemes.
At the same time, the telecom ecosystem has been under pressure to improve transparency. With mandatory KYC already in place for SIM cards, regulators and operators have long argued that showing a verified caller name could reduce anonymous misuse and improve accountability.
CNAP is a response to that push. It aligns with the broader regulatory direction of tying digital interactions more closely to verified identities, similar to how KYC transformed banking and payments. But identity visibility alone does not equal safety.
Why Seeing A Name Does Not Stop Scam Calls
The core limitation of CNAP is that it verifies identity, not intent. A scammer does not need to hide their registered name to defraud someone. In fact, having a legitimate-looking name displayed can sometimes make scams more effective. A call that appears to come from a “normal” Indian name may feel safer than an unknown or masked number, especially for elderly users or those less familiar with digital fraud tactics.
Spoofing also remains a major challenge. In many scam calls, the number displayed is not the actual origin of the call. International call routing, number masking, and SIM misuse still allow fraudsters to impersonate genuine numbers or rotate identities frequently.
CNAP does not detect these patterns. It does not analyse whether a number has made thousands of calls in a short time, whether recipients have reported it as fraudulent, or whether the call content resembles known scam scripts. As a result, it cannot block or warn users about high-risk calls.
In some cases, the presence of a name may even lower suspicion — a dangerous side effect in a country where trust is often tied to perceived familiarity.
Some consumers have also raised concerns with respect to robocalls. Robocalls are automatically enabled by IT systems to defraud individuals.
How User Behaviour Is Already Changing
Early anecdotal evidence suggests that CNAP is subtly reshaping how Indians answer their phones. Users are more likely to pick up calls when a name is displayed, even if they do not recognise it personally. Calls without a name are increasingly ignored, while named calls are perceived as more “legitimate”.
This behavioural shift matters because scams succeed not through technology alone, but through psychology. Fraudsters exploit urgency, authority, and trust. A visible name, especially one that sounds credible, can act as a psychological green light.
In effect, CNAP changes the threshold for answering a call, but not the underlying risk profile of the caller. That mismatch is where vulnerabilities emerge.
Does Truecaller Still Matter In A CNAP World?
Despite assumptions to the contrary, CNAP does not replace third-party caller ID and spam detection apps. In fact, their core value remains untouched.
Apps like Truecaller operate on an entirely different layer. They aggregate user reports, analyse call frequency, identify mass-dialling behaviour, and tag numbers based on community feedback. This allows them to flag spam, scams, telemarketers, and fraud attempts in real time.
Where CNAP provides an official identity label, these apps provide context and risk assessment. One tells you who the number belongs to; the other tells you whether answering is a good idea.
The Privacy Question No One Is Talking About
CNAP also raises uncomfortable questions about privacy and consent. Under the current model, a caller’s registered name is broadcast by default. Many users are unaware that their official KYC name, which may include full legal names, is now visible to strangers every time they place a call.
For individuals who prefer anonymity, use shared family numbers, or operate small businesses from personal SIMs, this can be intrusive. Women, in particular, have raised concerns about unsolicited calls now carrying their names, making it easier for strangers to identify them.
There is also ambiguity around correction and control. If a name is outdated, misspelled, or incorrectly registered, users may have limited clarity on how quickly it can be changed or hidden.
Does CNAP Provide A Safety Net?
CNAP adds a layer of identity visibility to calls, which can reduce anonymous misuse in some scenarios. But it does not yet analyse behaviour, detect fraud patterns, or block malicious activity. In that sense, it functions more like a nameplate than a security guard.
This distinction matters because misplaced trust can be as dangerous as no information at all.
As CNAP becomes more common, experts advise users to adjust their expectations rather than abandon caution. A visible name should be treated as a starting point for judgment, not a guarantee of legitimacy.
Banks, government agencies, and delivery companies still do not request sensitive information over unsolicited calls. No amount of caller ID visibility changes that fundamental rule. Verifying through official channels remains essential.
What’s The Step Forward?
The built-in caller ID reflects a broader move towards transparency and accountability in digital communication. But as scam tactics evolve faster than regulatory tools, CNAP alone cannot solve the problem of fraud.
For now, CNAP is best understood as one piece of a much larger puzzle. It reduces anonymity, but not deception. And until scam intelligence is built into networks themselves, caution, not caller names, remains the strongest defence.
