Section 4 of the Public Records Act states that no person shall take or cause to be taken public records out of India without the prior approval of the Central Government, except if done for any official purpose. 

India’s National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy requires that “non-sensitive data available either in digital or analogue forms but generated using public funds” must be stored within the borders of India. The policy states that data belongs to the "agency/department/ministry/entity which collected them and resides in their IT-enabled facility” (Section 10).

In 2015, India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued guidelines for a cloud computing empanelment process under which cloud computing service providers may be provisionally accredited as eligible for government procurement of cloud services. The guidelines require such providers to store all data in India to qualify for accreditation.
In addition, Section 2.1.d of the Guidelines for Government Departments on Contractual Terms Related to Cloud Services requires that any government contracts contain a localisation clause mandating that all government data residing in cloud storage networks is located on servers in India.
Also, Section 1.17.4 of the Master Service Agreement: Procurement of Cloud Services outlines, among other things, that cloud service providers must offer cloud services to the purchaser from a MeitY-enrolled data centre which is located in India, the data must be stored within India, and must not be taken out of India without explicit approval by the purchaser.

India is a party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

The Copyright Act of 1957 provides a clear regime of copyright exceptions that follows the fair dealing model, which enables the lawful use of copyrighted work by others without obtaining permission. According to Art. 52.1, a fair dealing with any work (not being a computer programme) for the purposes of private or personal use, criticism or review and the reporting of current events and current affairs does not constitute an infringement of copyright.

It is reported that India experiences substantial levels of piracy, particularly in the online environment, a situation exacerbated by weak enforcement. Stream‑ripping, the use of illicit streaming devices and unauthorised Internet Protocol television (IPTV) applications, as well as the unauthorised sharing of video games, are all identified by stakeholders as prominent forms of infringement.

India has adopted the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty.

India has adopted the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

India currently lacks a comprehensive legal framework capable of providing effective protection for trade secrets. It is reported that companies operating in India face considerable uncertainty owing to the absence of adequate legal mechanisms to safeguard confidential business information. Both foreign and domestic enterprises have identified trade secret protection as an increasingly significant concern and have expressed interest in India addressing the deficiencies within its existing trade secrets regime. At present, Indian law does not include specific civil or criminal provisions governing the protection of trade secrets. Criminal sanctions for trade secret misappropriation are not expressly provided for, while civil remedies are reportedly difficult to obtain and are insufficiently deterrent in nature. In the absence of a dedicated trade secrets statute, India relies on a range of existing legislative instruments, including the Indian Contract Act 1872, the Copyright Act 1957, and the Information Technology Act 2000, to afford limited and indirect protection. Although these statutes offer certain safeguards, they are fragmented and fail to provide a coherent and holistic approach to trade secret protection. Recognising these shortcomings, the Law Commission of India conducted a comprehensive examination of the desirability and feasibility of trade secrets legislation and recommended the introduction of a sui generis legal framework. Building upon these recommendations, the proposed Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024 seeks to establish comprehensive protection for trade secrets in India and to address the gaps inherent in the existing legal framework.

It is reported that there is an obligation for passive infrastructure sharing in India to deliver telecom services to end users, and it is practised in both the mobile and fixed sectors based on commercial agreements.

According to Section 6.2.14 of the 2020 Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy Circular, full foreign direct ownership is permitted in the telecommunications sector (including Category-I Telecommunications Infrastructure Providers). However, government approval is required for FDI above 49%. This regulatory requirement has been in effect since the enactment of the Consolidated FDI Policy Circular 2013 (Section 6.2.15).

It is reported that the government holds shareholdings in certain telecommunications companies. In particular, it is reported that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) is a public sector undertaking wholly owned by the government. It is also reported that the government holds a 49% equity stake in Vodafone India Limited.

India applies a residency requirement for the members of the board of directors. Art. 149.3 of the 2013 Companies Act requires every company to have at least one director who has stayed in India for a total period of not less than 182 days in the previous calendar year.

India does not mandate functional separation for operators with significant market power (SMP) in the telecom market. However, the Accounting Separation Regulation is applicable to all the service providers having aggregate turnover of not less than rupees one hundred crore (approx. 12,182,700 USD) during the accounting year for which report is required to be submitted from operations under the telecom license(s) issued to them under Chapter II of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The telecom service providers are required to submit their audited accounting separation reports based on a historical cost basis every year and on a replacement cost basis every second year within seven months of the end of the accounting year.

According to the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy Circular 2020, broadcasting services require that a majority of the company’s directors are Indian citizens. Additionally, the CEO, the chief officer responsible for technical network operations, and the chief security officer must all be resident Indian citizens. Furthermore, officers or officials of the licensee companies involved in the interception of services must also be Indian citizens. This requirement has been in effect since the implementation of the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy Circular 2013 (Section 6.2.7.6)