India’s mobile ecosystem is booming, but with it comes increased government regulation and censorship. The balance between national interests, user privacy, and freedom of expression is under scrutiny. GreatFire’s App Censorship Project team delves into this complex landscape through interviews with Prateek Waghre, Executive Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF).

AC: Prateek, could you offer us insight into the broader context of the Indian government’s involvement in the digital ecosystem, especially regarding app censorship and regulation?

Prateek: The Indian state’s involvement is selective and subjective.

If you zoom out a little, you can see this in the way a lot of India’s laws around the internet are being written, rewritten, or enacted. Whether it’s the data protection bill, the IT rules, the Digital India Bill, or the Telecommunications Act, these laws are written to give a lot of control and discretion to the executive branch. There’s also an increase in their ability to restrict apps and websites.

The framework lacks checks and balances, with a lot of control and discretion given to the executive branch. Everything happens within the executive branch. In most cases, they don’t put out any reasoned orders that you can actually push back against, and there’s a lot of opacity and discretion in the way the government is operating and can operate. That’s where the challenge or concern for us is.

For instance, the bans on Chinese apps often lacked demonstrated harm, with claims affecting sovereignty without detailed justification. In TikTok’s case, the press release [issued by the government] said (the app) affects the integrity and sovereignty of the country, which is a nice bold-sounding claim, but they’ve not actually demonstrated that in any way.

AC: What is the existing regulatory framework for blocking websites and apps?

Prateek: The framework operates under the IT Act and the 2009 blocking rules, which allow the government to block URLs, domains, and apps. These blocking rules allow for confidentiality by default. When the government sends a request to block a URL, whether it’s to an app store, a social media platform, or anyone else, they have the choice to tell the intermediary that the order is confidential and can’t be disclosed to anyone. In most cases, they do this. This often leaves affected parties unaware of the reasons for the blockage.

AC: It appears that the general government framework has become more coercive and restrictive. Would you agree?

Prateek: Yes, but there’s also a narrative promoting Indian startups. Sometimes, they will say things like “Okay, we’ve passed these rules that seem crazy, but they don’t really apply to startups in India.” The government aims to foster innovation while maintaining leverage over large tech companies like Google and Apple. The government also doesn’t necessarily want any of the larger tech companies to exit the country, whether it’s Google or Apple. On Apple’s side, there’s also the added element of manufacturing that Apple is doing in India. It gives the government both leverage and something to lose if Apple were to leave over some differences.

AC: How would you describe the Indian government’s relationship with big tech companies?

Prateek: Publicly, the government may threaten big tech companies, saying things like, “look, if you don’t like the laws in India, you can leave the country,” But in reality, they don’t actually want any of them to leave because that can in some cases hit their perception as a business-friendly jurisdiction.

We’ve also seen that companies view India as a market they cannot afford to be excluded from. So they also tend to be conciliatory wherever possible, at least in public. Now, a lot of the discussion actually happens behind closed doors, so we don’t know to what extent they push back in private meetings.

I think one exception to this has been Twitter. This goes back to early 2021 where you had the farmers’ protests in India and the government asked Twitter to block a number of accounts. Twitter initially complied with a lot of the requests and then went back and decided not to take action against accounts that belong to activists, journalists, politicians, etc., reversing course on some accounts. The government was extremely unhappy with that, which is why you had the first iteration of the IT rules, coming into effect in February 2021.

These rules introduced liability in the form of mandating that these companies with a certain number of users have an in-country grievance officer and in-country compliance officer, both of whom are personally liable if the company doesn’t comply with government orders.

That potentially changed the situation for a lot of companies because now, if they are getting into a fight with the government, they are risking the market and also potentially employees’ safety.

However, this temporary relisting is not due to any court ruling but solely because of the government’s intervention. Our legal battles continue in the Competition Commission of India and the Supreme Court.

AC: Many apps have been taken down by Apple following the Indian government’s requests. How does this impact press freedom and freedom of speech within the mobile app ecosystem?

Prateek: Free expression is broader than app censorship. The government’s regulatory structure allows it to exert significant influence over tech companies, social media platforms and press outlets, shaping narratives and applying pressure through various means (including financial pressure). Blocking or censoring apps is just one of the ways that the government can pressure different entities, different corporations into doing what they want them to do.

AC: Has your organization engaged the government on issues of bans, censorship, and delisting of apps?

Prateek: Our engagement includes issuing statements, writing to the government, and assisting petitioners in court. For example, we are involved in litigation challenges against the blocking of satirical websites and other cases of unjustified censorship.