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 Art. 3B of the Internal Trade (DPIIT) Order No. P-45021/2/2017-B.E, if the procurement authority has determined that sufficient local capacity and competition exist, only 'Class-I Local Suppliers' are eligible to participate, ensuring that all selected suppliers fall within this category. As stipulated in the Order, a 'Class-I Local Supplier' is defined as a supplier whose local content comprises at least 50%.

The Indian government adopted a formal preference for open-source software for e-government procurement opportunities related to its digital agenda. The Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for the Government of India is reported to be one of the most far-reaching and restrictive preference schemes that has been implemented to date. The Policy calls for a change from using Closed Cloud Software (CSS), which is licensed under the exclusive right of the copyright holder. The Indian government wants all governmental organisations to move towards the use of open-source software, which it argues would ensure strategic control of eGovernance applications and reduce the cost of ownership of projects. The Framework for adoption of Open Source Software in eGovernance applications provides a set of procedures and recommendations for promoting, adopting and managing OSS in e-Governance systems. The framework provides guidance on the selection of software and the induction of the OSS software.

There is a requirement to make patents available on a royalty-free basis for those open standards identified as "Identified Standards" under the Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance. Per Clause 4.1.2: "The Patent claims necessary to implement the Identified Standard shall be made available on a Royalty-Free basis for the lifetime of the Standard". Open standards refer to the freedom to encode and decode data and network protocols.

Pursuant to Art. 13A of the Internal Trade (DPIIT) Order No. P-45021/2/2017-B.E, for goods, services, or works subject to substantial public procurement, where the Nodal Ministry has not determined the existence of sufficient local capacity and competition, the Ministry must establish an upper threshold value beyond which foreign companies are required to form joint ventures with Indian companies to participate in tenders. Procuring entities must incorporate this requirement into their tenders and include provisions exempting such joint ventures from the stipulated minimum local content requirements, with a framework for the gradual increase of these requirements over time.

Under Rule 151 of the General Financial Rules, the Central Government may, through notification, mandate the procurement of specific goods or services from certain categories of bidders or grant preferential treatment to bidders to promote locally manufactured goods or locally provided services.

Under India’s Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Order, Central Government Ministries, Departments, and Public Sector Undertakings are required to procure a minimum of 25% of their annual value of goods or services from Indian micro and small enterprises. Within this 25% allocation, 3% is reserved specifically for women-owned SMEs.