It is reported that authorities in India rely on the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 to impose internet shutdowns. Under Section 20 of the Act, government authorities are empowered to halt the transmission of messages or classes of messages during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. Additionally, the 2024 Suspension Rules, issued under Sections 20 and 56 of the same Act, permit only the Union Home Secretary or the Secretary to the State Government in charge of the Home Department to order temporary suspensions of telecom services. Such orders may only be issued as a last resort, after it is determined that the intended objectives—such as safeguarding public order or national security—cannot reasonably be achieved through any other means. Each suspension order must be in writing and must clearly specify the reasons, the geographic area affected, and the type of telecommunication service being restricted.
Internet shutdowns have reportedly been a common practice in India since 2010. Officials often justify them as necessary to maintain law and order, prevent violence or communal tensions, suppress protests, combat disinformation, or deter cheating during examinations. In 2024, India reportedly recorded 84 internet shutdowns, making it the country with the second-highest number of shutdowns globally. These were primarily imposed in response to protests (41 instances), communal violence (23 instances), and government job placement examinations (5 instances). The northeastern state of Manipur experienced the most shutdowns (21), followed by Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir, each with 12. Notably, in November 2024, authorities enforced a 24-hour internet shutdown in Sambhal district, Uttar Pradesh, following violence during a mosque survey.
The indicator "7.2.4 - Government Internet shut down in practice" of the V-Dem Dataset, which measures whether the government has the technical capacity to actively make internet service cease, thus interrupting domestic access to the internet or whether the government has decided to do so, has a score of 2 in India for the year 2025. This corresponds to "The government shut down domestic access to the Internet numerous times this year."

According to the License Agreement for Provision of Internet Services, the Internet Service Provider licensee shall maintain all commercial records, call detail records, exchange detail records, and IP detail records with regard to the communications exchanged on the network. Such records shall be archived for at least two years for scrutiny by the Licensor for security reasons and may be destroyed thereafter unless directed otherwise by the Licensor.

According to Section 3 of The Prevention of Money-Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, banking information must be stored for 10 years "from the date of cessation of the transactions between the client and the banking company, financial institution or intermediary, as the case may be".

As per the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, a listed entity (i.e. an entity which is listed on the stock market) is required to have a policy for the preservation of documents. The SEBI Listing Regulations require that records, books, papers and documents of the company be preserved as per the following classifications:
- Schedule I - to be preserved permanently. Documents listed under this schedule include incorporation documents, share certificates, register of minutes of board meetings, register of members, etc.
- Schedule II – to be preserved for eight years. Documents listed under this schedule include books of accounts, attendance register of board meetings, register for debenture holders, etc.
- Schedule III – to be preserved for a minimum period of five years or such higher period as may be determined by the board of directors of the company. Documents listed under this schedule include a register of stock options, a register of directors and key managerial personnel, disclosures made under applicable company laws, etc.
As per the SEBI Listing Regulations, documents set out in Schedule I and II can be kept in electronic mode. The complete list of documents under each schedule is set out in the SEBI Listing Regulations.

Pursuant to Section 10 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, a significant data fiduciary must appoint a data protection officer based in India, who is responsible, inter alia, for conducting periodic data protection impact assessments comprising a description of the rights of data principals, the purposes for which their personal data are processed, an evaluation and management of risks to those rights, and any additional matters prescribed in relation to such assessments. Under Section 2, a data fiduciary is defined as any person who, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of processing personal data; a significant data fiduciary refers to any data fiduciary, or class thereof, designated as such by the Central Government under Section 10; and a data principal denotes the individual to whom the personal data relate.

Under Rule 4 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021, a "significant" social media intermediary (defined as a social media intermediary having number of registered users in India above 5,000,000) must appoint a Chief Compliance Officer who must ensure compliance with the Rules and will be liable in any proceedings relating to any relevant third-party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by that intermediary where he/she fails to ensure that such intermediary observes due diligence while discharging its duties under the Rules.

Under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, both central and state governments are empowered to instruct any government agency to intercept, monitor, or decrypt electronic information. This authority can be exercised on the following grounds: in the interest of India's sovereignty or integrity; for the security of the State; to maintain friendly relations with foreign states; for public order; or to prevent or investigate the commission of an offence. Additionally, under Section 69B, the government is authorised to permit any agency to monitor and collect traffic data or information exchanged through a computer resource.
The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules of 2009 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules of 2009, both promulgated under the Information Technology Act, provide procedural guidelines for carrying out such interception and monitoring. For example, Rule 3 of the latter Rules permits the collection and/or monitoring of traffic data or information via a computer resource for several purposes, including: forecasting imminent cyber incidents; monitoring network applications; identifying and determining viruses or computer contaminants; tracking cybersecurity breaches or incidents; identifying individuals who have breached or are suspected of breaching cybersecurity measures; conducting forensic analyses as part of investigations or internal audits of information security practices; accessing stored data for the enforcement of cybersecurity law; or addressing any other cybersecurity-related issues.

Pursuant to Art. 20(2) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, in the event of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, the Central Government, a State Government, or any officer specifically authorised by either, may issue an order—if deemed necessary or appropriate—directing that any message or category of messages, whether sent or received by any person or group of persons, through any telecommunication equipment or network, and relating to any specific subject, be prohibited from transmission, intercepted, detained, or disclosed in an intelligible format to the designated officer identified in the order. It is not clear whether a court order is required to access the data.

The Information Technology Act establishes a safe harbour regime for intermediaries for copyright infringements. Section 79 of the Act provides intermediaries with qualified immunity for unlawful content as long as they follow the prescribed due diligence requirements and do not conspire, abet or aid an unlawful act. However, the protection lapses if an intermediary with "actual knowledge" of any content used to commit an unlawful act or, on being notified of such content, fails to remove or restrict access to it.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 establish a safe harbour regime beyond intermediaries for copyright infringement. According to Rule 3.1(d), an intermediary, after receiving 'actual knowledge' through a court order or by being notified by a government agency, must remove information that is prohibited by law in relation to the interest and sovereignty of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence or information which violates any law which is in force. Such information has to be removed within thirty-six hours from receipt of actual knowledge by the intermediary.
In addition, "significant social media intermediaries", defined as having more than five million registered Indian users, need to observe additional due diligence requirements to claim the immunity/safe harbour available. Rule 6 of the Information Technology Rules provides that even if a social media intermediary does not meet this user threshold, the Central Government may still require an intermediary to meet these additional obligations if it believes that their operations create a material risk of harm to the sovereignty and integrity of India or to the security of the State. This discretion to the Central government may lead to the arbitrary imposition of additional obligations on certain intermediaries. The additional due diligence requirements include appointing certain personnel for compliance, enabling identification of the first originator of the information on its platform under certain conditions, and deploying technology-based measures on a best-effort basis to identify certain types of content.

According to the Regulation on the Use of Aadhaar e-KYC Service of the Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI) for Issuing New Mobile Connections and Re-Verification of Existing Subscribers via OTP-Based Authentication, Indian citizens are required to register their SIM card with their Aadhaar Card (a type of national identity card). Foreigners have to provide their passport, a photocopy of their Indian visa/ travel permit, a passport-sized photo and contact details.

According to Art. 3.3 of the Information Technology Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, intermediaries are required to deploy technology-based automated tools or appropriate mechanisms with appropriate controls for proactively identifying and removing or disabling public access to unlawful information or content.

Section 69 of the Indian Information Technology Act (IITA) requires intermediaries to extend all facilities and technical assistance to intercept, monitor or decrypt information as well as to provide information stored in a computer or provide access to a computer resource when called upon to do so by certain agencies. This extends to online intermediaries, which are required to designate an officer to facilitate the execution of such orders. Intermediaries that fail to meet these obligations may be punished with imprisonment of up to seven years.

According to Art. 4.2 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021, a significant social media intermediary (defined as a social media intermediary having a number of registered users in India above five million) providing messaging services must enable identification of the first originator of the information on its computer resource as may be required by a judicial order or an order passed by a competent authority. In complying with an order for the identification of the first originator, a significant social media intermediary will not be required to disclose the contents of the electronic message related to the first originator or other users. No order must be passed in cases where there are less intrusive means of identifying the originator of the information.

India has not joined any agreement with binding commitments to open transfers of data across borders.