Digital Sovereignty vs. Global Platforms: Rethinking India’s Internet Governance Framework

The Internet, once hailed as a borderless frontier of free expression and global exchange, is increasingly being reshaped by national governments seeking control over its flows. India, with its massive digital population of over 800 million users, stands at the heart of this debate. The ongoing friction between the State and global platforms like X, Meta, and Google highlights a central question: how should India balance its claim of digital sovereignty with the imperatives of being part of a globally connected digital ecosystem?

At the core of this tension lies digital sovereignty—the principle that a nation has the authority to regulate digital infrastructure, data, and content within its borders. India’s regulatory framework, particularly Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has empowered the government to block access to content in the interest

of security, public order, and sovereignty. This authority has been exercised against global platforms when they are perceived to be uncooperative in taking down objectionable or politically sensitive content.

Yet, this assertion of sovereignty often clashes with the ethos of global platforms, which operate on transnational principles of uniformity and market access. Platforms argue that excessive takedown orders and local compliance demands risk fragmenting the Internet into national silos. India, however, maintains that its laws must prevail within its jurisdiction, a claim made stronger by concerns over misinformation, online radicalization, and threats to electoral integrity.

The challenge, however, lies in striking the right balance. On one hand, unchecked power to block content risks veering into press censorship and stifling dissent, undermining democratic values. On the other, a laissez-faire approach leaves citizens vulnerable to the manipulations of foreign entities and digital monopolies with little accountability. India’s tussle with platforms, therefore, is not merely about compliance—it is about recalibrating the architecture of Internet governance itself.

From a constitutional lens, India’s Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) held that restrictions on online speech must meet the tests of reasonableness under Article 19(2). While upholding Section 69A, the Court emphasized procedural safeguards and transparency in blocking orders. Unfortunately, in practice, many takedown directives are shrouded in secrecy, denying citizens clarity on why particular content is inaccessible. Such opacity fuels suspicion of political misuse rather than legitimate national security concerns.

The global context is equally instructive. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) offer models of balancing user rights with state control through transparent, rules-based frameworks. China, by contrast, has chosen an extreme path of absolute control, turning its Internet into a heavily censored “walled garden.” India seems to oscillate between these models—asserting its sovereign right to regulate but without fully institutionalizing accountability mechanisms.

What India needs is a coherent Internet governance framework that reconciles sovereignty with openness. First, transparency must be non-negotiable. Every blocking order under Section 69A should be accompanied by published reasoning, subject to post-facto judicial review. Second, a tiered compliance mechanism can be designed for global platforms—where matters of national security are treated with urgency, but political dissent and journalistic expression receive higher thresholds of scrutiny. Third, India must actively engage in global Internet governance forums, positioning itself not as a censor but as a thought leader advocating for “sovereign yet open” digital spaces.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of India’s claim to digital sovereignty will depend not on how aggressively it compels platforms to comply, but on whether its regulations preserve constitutional freedoms while safeguarding national interests. A governance model that tilts too far toward censorship risks alienating citizens and businesses alike, undermining the very sovereignty it seeks to protect.

India today stands at a defining juncture in its digital journey. As the world’s largest democracy and a rising digital power, it has the opportunity to craft a governance model that demonstrates how sovereignty and global connectivity can coexist. The future of India’s Internet will depend not on how loudly the State asserts its authority, but on how wisely it uses it.