Internet Censorship in India: How ISPs Block Websites and Why Access Varies Across Providers

The experience an Internet user has in India is closely tied to the Internet Service Provider (ISP) they choose. Perceived differences are not limited only to pricing and quality of service, but also to how much of the Internet a user can access, which changes from one ISP to another.

This is because ISPs in India — much like everywhere else — block websites in response to government and court orders. However, implementation is not uniform across ISPs, and blocklists vary widely.

Why Websites Are Blocked in India: Legal Framework Explained

Sections 69A and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, empower the government to issue blocking orders to ISPs and intermediaries.

The licensing agreement for ISPs explicitly requires that they “block Internet sites […] as identified and directed by the Licensor from time to time.” ISPs are confidentially bound to the blocking orders they receive and implement.

In copyright and trademark dispute-related cases, blocking orders are made public as part of court orders.

The blocking of websites usually only comes to light when users notice it is inaccessible and raise questions — such as what happened when Supabase was recently blocked.

In some instances, the government may choose to announce its blocking actions, such as when it announced the blocking of 59 Chinese applications including TikTok in 2020.

How ISPs Block Websites in India: DNS, HTTP, and HTTPS Explained

Understanding Internet Protocols Used for Blocking

The Internet is made up of protocols like the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), Transport Layer Security (TLS), and Domain Name System (DNS) among others.

When an ISP receives a blocking order, it is free to implement it through any or all of these protocols.

DNS Blocking and DNS Poisoning: The Most Common Method

DNS is the first layer a user interacts with when trying to access a website and is responsible for translating names like example.com to addresses that browsers can understand.

When an ISP wants to block a domain at the DNS layer, it configures its servers to return a false answer. This technique is called DNS poisoning.

A user’s request for example.com doesn’t end up at the actual address for the website, but to whatever address the ISP has pointed it to instead.

HTTP and HTTPS Blocking Techniques

ISPs can also intercept unencrypted HTTP traffic and return a block page, though this technique is largely outdated as most websites and browsers now use HTTPS by default.

For HTTPS websites, ISPs look for the Server Name Indication (SNI) field to identify and drop connections to blocked domains before they are established.

In practice, most Indian ISPs rely primarily on DNS blocking as it is cheap to implement and requires no deep packet inspection.

Study Reveals Scale of Internet Blocking in India

Largest DNS Blocking Study Findings (2025)

To understand the scale of website blocking in India, a study queried the DNS servers of six major and regional ISPs to test the censorship of 294 million domains, representing nearly the entire visible domain name space.

These tests were carried out over many months in 2025 and contribute to the largest study of DNS-level website blocking in India to date.

Key Data Insights: Inconsistent Blocking Across ISPs

Out of the total 43,083 blocked domain names found by the study, only 1,414 were blocked by all six ISPs.

This indicates that despite receiving the same blocking orders, not all ISPs block the same websites.

Which Websites Are Commonly Blocked in India?

Domains related to the following categories make up the majority of blocked content:

• Piracy websites

• Peer-to-peer file sharing platforms

• Pornography websites

• Gambling platforms

However, blocks are not consistently enforced across ISPs.

For domains hosting terrorism and militancy content, blocking consistency across ISPs increases significantly.

Perfect consensus can be seen in certain sensitive cases, such as the blocking of China’s Weibo.com or the website of Srinagar-based publication The Kashmir Walla, showing that some orders are treated more seriously than others.

Arbitrary and Uneven Internet Restrictions in India

Along with inconsistent enforcement, almost all ISPs appear to engage in arbitrary blocking in some form.

The study highlights the haphazard way in which both regional and national ISPs implement blocking orders.

In the absence of a standardised framework or guidelines, ISPs are left to their own devices, resulting in an inconsistent blocking landscape.

A domain blocked by one provider may be freely accessible through another, undermining the stated rationale for blocking while still infringing on the rights of users served by the more aggressive ISP.

Legal and Transparency Concerns Around Website Blocking

Domains officially ordered unblocked continue to remain blocked by some ISPs in clear defiance of orders, but without penalty to ISPs or relief for affected website operators.

Inconsistency is not the only issue — the system is also highly opaque.

An ideal system would include public disclosure of blocked domains, with exceptions only for sensitive issues such as national security or child protection.

Supreme Court Guidelines and the Need for Reform

The Supreme Court of India in the Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) case upheld Section 69A but emphasised procedural safeguards, including:

• Review committees

• Right of affected parties to be heard

However, in practice, these safeguards are difficult to implement effectively due to the lack of transparency and standardisation.

Why Internet Access Differs Across ISPs in India

The current system of website blocking in India reveals a fragmented and inconsistent approach.

While legal provisions exist to regulate content, the absence of uniform implementation and transparency leads to unequal access to the Internet.

For users, this means that the Internet experience can vary significantly depending on their ISP — raising important questions about digital rights, governance, and accountability.