According to the Import Export Classification, Indian Trade Classification – Harmonized System (ITC-HS) Code, and Import Policy 2012, certain goods require special permission or licensing in order to be imported. Selected consumer goods, including radio and TV broadcast transmitters and communication jamming equipment, are qualified as licensed/restricted items that can only be imported after obtaining an import license from India’s Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). However, it has been reported that India is increasingly using import licenses at the discretion of the authorities to limit imports of sensitive products. In addition, it is reported that the licensing system is not automatic as it involves delays and authorized quantities can be lower than requested. The granting of licenses is limited to actual users.

It is reported that during the course of 2020, the Ministry of Information and Technology, based on the provisions of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and relevant provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by the Public) Rules, 2009, banned 267 apps in view of the emerging nature of security threats posed by these apps and the detrimental nature of these apps to sovereignty, defense and law and order in India. The Ministry has reportedly pointed out that these apps raise data security and privacy concerns. On June 29, 2020, 59 apps were banned; on September 2, 2020, 118; and on November 24, 2020, 43.

According to Notification No. 107/(RE-2013)/2009-2014, GSM mobile handsets’ with duplicate International Mobile Equipment Identity Number (IMEI) or fake IMEI & ‘CDMA mobile handsets’ with duplicate Electronic Serial Number (ESN)/ mobile equipment identifier (MEID) or fake ESN/MEID are added to the list of ‘Prohibited’ items for import. The Government has taken over from a private agency to issue and manage IMEI allocation for mobile phones in India.

The indicator "6.2.4 - 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. This corresponds to "The government shut down domestic access to the Internet several times this year."

The Indian state has reportedly shut down the internet several times in recent years. In 2021, the state shut down the internet when Indian farmers staged a months-long protest against new agricultural laws in the country's capital. Also, in 2022, a shutdown was reported in the western Indian city of Udaipur when a Hindu tailor was killed by a Muslim in an incident that raised fears of communal violence. Finally, it is reported that nearly one-third of the outages counted between 2020 and 2022 were aimed at preventing cheating on exams.

According to the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, national or state-level officials are allowed to issue temporary suspension orders to shut down telecom services in times of public emergency or threats to public safety. However, each order should contain reasons for shutdowns of telecom services and should be forwarded to a review committee for assessment.

It is reported that in April 2022, the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) issued several orders to social media and news companies to block access to twenty-two YouTube channels, three Twitter accounts, one Facebook account, and a news webpage. The MIB noted that those twenty-two YouTube channels were spreading “anti-Indian” content and false information regarding the “situation in Ukraine”, which could endanger India’s foreign relations. The MIB decision follows the adoption of the Information Technology Rules of February 2021, giving the ministry the power to restrict access to content during emergencies where “no delay is acceptable". In addition, it has been reported that the government has routinely blocked specific websites or successfully pressured social media platforms to block content in India. According to reports, nearly 7,000 social media posts and accounts were blocked in 2022.

According to Art. 4.2 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 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.

According to Art. 8 of the Information Technology Rule, an officer so designated by the Central Government under the Rules (known as 'Designated Officer') can on the receipt of a request from any nodal officer of a government organisation or a competent court or by an order of any agency of the government can block access by the public to any information transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. The request will be examined by a committee consisting of the designated officer and its chairperson and representatives, who shall determine if the information must be blocked.

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 the Use of Aadhaar e-KYC service of Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI) for issuing new mobile connections and re-verification of existing subscribers-OTP based authentication regulation, 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.

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 disable access to it.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, establishes 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 a duration of 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.

The Rules provide that the officer so designated by the Central Government under the Rules (known as 'Designated Officer') can on the receipt of request from any nodal officer of a government organisation or a competent court or by an order of any agency of the government can block access by the public to any information transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. The request will be examined by a committee consisting of the designated officer and its chairperson and representatives, who shall determine if the information must be blocked.