Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Central Monitoring System

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) is a centralized telecommunications surveillance framework implemented by the to enable real-time interception and monitoring of voice calls, text messages, and across , , and networks, bypassing service providers as intermediaries. Developed by the (C-DOT) under the , CMS was approved by the and began phased rollout in , initially targeting major urban centers before expanding nationwide. The system integrates with existing network infrastructure to facilitate orders, allowing authorized agencies such as the Intelligence Bureau and to access communication and directly from a unified platform, purportedly to enhance efficiency in counter-terrorism and criminal investigations. Despite its stated security objectives, CMS has faced substantial scrutiny for enabling capabilities without robust independent oversight mechanisms, such as mandatory judicial warrants or transparency reporting, which critics argue contravenes constitutional privacy protections under Article 21 and international standards. Reports have highlighted risks of arbitrary access and political exploitation, with implementation details remaining opaque due to classifications, exacerbating concerns over in a where prior regimes relied on decentralized provider-assisted processes. As of 2025, the system continues to operate amid evolving digital threats, though calls for regulatory reforms persist to balance security imperatives with .

Historical Development

Inception and Early Planning

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) originated in the aftermath of the , which exposed significant gaps in India's intelligence and communication interception capabilities. The attacks, carried out by Pakistan-based militants using advanced communication tools like satellite phones and VoIP, underscored the limitations of fragmented systems reliant on individual telecom service providers. In response, the Indian government envisioned a centralized monitoring framework in 2009 to enable real-time interception and data analysis for . On November 26, 2009, the Press Information Bureau announced the government's proposal for a centralized system to monitor , , and communications, aiming to reduce manual interventions and facilitate instant access for agencies. This initiative sought to replace the decentralized process, where agencies had to issue separate warrants to multiple telecom providers, leading to inefficiencies, delays, and risks of information leaks. The (DoT) spearheaded the planning, with the (C-DOT) tasked with technical development. The project received approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security on June 16, 2011, as part of broader communication security measures amid escalating threats from Islamist terrorism, including cross-border incursions from Pakistan by groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, and persistent internal insurgencies in regions such as Jammu and Kashmir and the Northeast. These challenges highlighted the need for streamlined, centralized intelligence gathering to counter evolving tactics involving encrypted communications and rapid coordination by adversaries. Early planning included pilot implementations, with a Delhi trial completed by September 2011, setting the stage for nationwide rollout.

Rollout and Implementation Phases

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) was first announced by the Indian government on November 26, 2009, as a centralized mechanism to enhance security through automated monitoring of telecommunications. Pilot testing commenced shortly thereafter, with initial trials of the indigenously developed system underway by August 2010 to validate its capacity for tracking communication traffic across networks. Implementation accelerated in April , marking the start of phased rollout amid plans to deploy in 10 telecom circles by December of that year, focusing on integrating with existing for direct . The system proceeded in three phases, each spanning approximately 13-14 months, prioritizing automation of interceptions for and services without reliance on service providers as intermediaries. Technical challenges, including deficiencies in algorithms, databases, and with diverse telecom networks, caused delays beyond the initial December 2013 target, extending timelines into 2014 and prompting adjustments in procurement and development. Despite opposition from privacy advocates citing risks of misuse, the persisted, achieving gradual expansion to encompass , landline services, and communications between 2015 and 2017 through iterative upgrades and regional monitoring centers. By the late , phased deployment had culminated in nationwide coverage, as reflected in progress reports, enabling comprehensive real-time monitoring capabilities across India's ecosystem.

Key Milestones Post-2013

Following the initial rollout, amendments to telecom license agreements in February 2016 mandated integration of the (CMS) into operations for Unified Access Service (UAS), Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS), and Unified License holders, standardizing compliance for direct data routing to centralized nodes without operator-level interception. In 2024, the notified the (Procedures and Safeguards for of Messages) Rules under the Telecom Act, 2023, refining authorization, dissemination, and retention protocols for intercepted data, which enhanced procedural alignment for CMS-enabled monitoring of traffic, including provisions for decryption assistance from providers where feasible. By 2025, internal Department of Telecommunications allocations referenced Central Monitoring System 2.0, signaling an upgrade to bolster capabilities amid evolving threats like encrypted communications and satellite services, with mandates for lawful interception extended to satcom providers to prevent data routing outside India. Annual interception volumes processed via centralized mechanisms reached approximately 9,000 orders per month by 2020, reflecting scaled utilization for authorized in counter-terrorism and , with central government issuances exceeding 100,000 annually in earlier assessments.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Foundational Laws

The foundational legal authority for India's (CMS) derives from Section 5 of the , which empowers the Central or State Government to intercept messages transmitted by telegraph during a public emergency, in the interest of public safety, the or integrity of , state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or for preventing incitement to offenses. This provision, originally enacted during British colonial rule, establishes the state's interception powers over wireline and wireless communications, forming the bedrock for lawful without necessitating judicial warrants in specified circumstances. Complementing the Telegraph Act, Section 69 of the , extends these interception capabilities to digital communications, authorizing the Central or State Government to direct any agency to intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received, or stored in a computer resource under analogous grounds, including threats to India's defense, security, or economic interests. This section mandates technical assistance from intermediaries and service providers, with penalties including up to seven years' imprisonment for non-compliance, thereby bridging pre-digital legal precedents to modern and mobile data flows. CMS operationalizes these statutes through automated, centralized infrastructure managed by the (C-DOT), obviating the need for bespoke legislation by streamlining compliance with existing interception mandates previously handled decentralized by telecom operators. Interception directives, issued by competent authorities under the Home Ministry's purview for and agencies, feed directly into the system, enhancing efficiency while adhering to the Telegraph Act's Rule 419A and IT Rules 2009 safeguards, such as review committees for oversight. This framework prioritizes state imperatives in a context of persistent internal and external threats, diverging from privacy-centric models in jurisdictions emphasizing absolute individual rights over collective security.

Interception Authorization Processes

Authorizations for interceptions under the Central Monitoring System are restricted to competent authorities to mitigate risks of misuse, with orders issued exclusively by the Home Secretary for central matters or equivalent state Home Secretaries for local jurisdictions, as per Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. These directives apply only to enumerated grounds under Section 5(2) of the , including threats to state security, public order, or specific criminal investigations, and necessitate prior consideration of non-intrusive alternatives. Initial orders are capped at 60 days, extendable upon renewal but not beyond a total of 180 days without evidence-based justification for ongoing , ensuring periodic reassessment rather than indefinite . Renewals demand documented proof of necessity, such as links to active probes into or serious offenses, preventing perpetuation absent causal ties to threats. Real-time judicial approval is absent from the framework, reflecting reliance on executive discretion calibrated by high-level checks; however, post-facto audits occur via mandatory review committees, as mandated by the in v. (1997). Central committees, including the , , and Secretary (Legal Affairs), meet bi-monthly to evaluate compliance, ordering cessation and record destruction for unauthorized or disproportionate interceptions, while state-level equivalents follow parallel scrutiny. Procedural data underscores targeted application, with authorizations tethered to individualized cases—predominantly terror-related or criminal inquiries—rather than generalized data hoarding, as centralizes delivery of - or executive-sanctioned intercepts without proactive, unrequested collection. This aligns with empirical patterns pre- and post- rollout, where approvals hinge on agency requests specifying suspects and evidentiary predicates, refuting blanket monitoring narratives despite isolated misuse allegations.

Amendments and Updates (2013–2025)

In 2013, the () initiated amendments to unified access service licensee (UASL) and cellular mobile telephone service (CMTS) agreements, incorporating clauses under conditions 44.10 and 5.9 to mandate telecom operators' assistance in establishing the Central Monitoring System (CMS), thereby facilitating direct government access to interception data without routing through service providers. These changes addressed early implementation gaps in processes, enabling automated monitoring while requiring operators to provision necessary infrastructure for secrecy and efficiency. The (Procedures and Safeguards for of Messages) Rules, 2024, notified on December 13, 2024, standardized interception protocols by mandating review committees for oversight, destruction of intercepted data within two working days post-expiry of orders, and confirmation reports to competent authorities, aiming to balance procedural safeguards with operational needs amid rising encrypted communications. These rules relaxed prior conditions on interception duration and agency authorizations under Section 5 of the , to adapt to cyber threats and volume of digital traffic, while prohibiting indefinite retention to mitigate misuse risks. In September 2025, the released draft (Authorisation for Captive Telecommunication Services) Rules, 2025, extending regulatory oversight to captive networks used by enterprises for , requiring compliance with and obligations akin to public telecom services to counter emerging risks from isolated, encryption-heavy infrastructures. These provisions, open for consultation until October 9, 2025, integrate captive services into the broader monitoring framework by imposing 20-year authorization validity with built-in mandates, responding to proliferation of enterprise-owned networks that bypass traditional routing. Such adaptations preserve core legal boundaries under the Telecom Act, 2023, by embedding procedural reviews without expanding substantive surveillance powers beyond established rationales.

Technical Architecture

Core System Components

The Central Monitoring System () core infrastructure, developed by the (C-DOT), consists of centralized and regional servers configured for the interception, processing, and storage of telecommunications metadata and content. These servers aggregate intercepted data directly from telecom service providers' nodes, enabling a unified access point for authorized agencies rather than decentralized handoffs. Key elements include dedicated servers deployed across approximately 220 locations by telecom operators, which feed into CMS's central databases for and analysis. The incorporates end-to-end secured workflows to handle call records, voice intercepts, and social networking of targeted subscribers, ensuring controlled dissemination to prevent unauthorized access. CMS's architecture features a national rollout across licensed service areas, with hardware and software tailored for scalable data handling from diverse network types, including landlines, mobile, and services. This setup supports automated provisioning without requiring physical reconfiguration at provider ends for each request.

Integration with Telecommunications Infrastructure

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) interfaces with India's telecommunications infrastructure via standardized lawful interception (LI) systems mandated by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), requiring telecom service providers to install dedicated interception servers within their networks. These interfaces enable direct delivery of intercepted call data records, content, and metadata from operators' switches to CMS nodes, bypassing traditional manual routing through regional exchanges. For instance, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), as the primary public sector operator, integrates its core network elements with CMS through C-DOT-developed protocols, while private carriers like Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea comply via similar LI handovers established post-2013 rollout phases. Automation in CMS integration streamlines order processing by electronically transmitting interception authorizations from law enforcement agencies to relevant operators' LI systems, reducing processing time from days to minutes and minimizing human intervention that previously risked errors in target identification or data routing. This is achieved through secure, protocol-based exchanges that ensure intercepted traffic is isolated and forwarded without altering the underlying telecom network operations. By December 2013, interface testing with telecom service providers' LI setups was completed for over 70 interception servers, facilitating real-time data aggregation across diverse carrier infrastructures. DoT guidelines post-2013 enforce uniform LI interface specifications, such as support for SS7 and protocols for signaling , ensuring without conferring full administrative control over telecom switches or broader . This setup allows operators to maintain operational autonomy while fulfilling interception obligations, with acting as a centralized rather than a controller. is verified through periodic audits and security certifications of TSP equipment, as directed under the Indian Telegraph Rules.

Data Handling and Monitoring Capabilities

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) enables real-time interception and monitoring of telecommunications data, including voice calls, text messages, and communications, for targets authorized under lawful orders issued by competent authorities. This capability bypasses traditional routing through service providers by converging interception feeds into centralized nodes, allowing agencies to access filtered streams directly from the system. CMS processes both content data—such as call audio, content, and packet payloads—and , including call duration, endpoints, timestamps, and addresses, with provisions for automated storage and retrieval. retention supports pattern analysis for investigative leads, such as linking communication graphs to identify networks, though retention durations align with operational needs rather than fixed statutory mandates absent specific laws. Under Section 69 of the , these functions require government authorization for decryption and monitoring, limiting application to specified targets rather than blanket collection. Geolocation tracking integrates via telecom , such as cell tower identifiers and signal strength data, enabling approximate positioning of devices during active sessions without standalone GPS mandates. monitoring extends to , capturing URLs, protocols, and data volumes for authorized sessions, which can encompass interactions routed through monitored networks, though platform-specific scraping relies on complementary tools under the same legal framework. employs rule-based filters to prioritize intercepts based on target identifiers, such as phone numbers linked to threats, ensuring non-indiscriminate operation tied to judicial or executive warrants. Data handling incorporates for transit and storage at central and regional servers, with audit logs for traceability, though implementation details remain partially classified to preserve operational . As of rollout, the system supports up to thousands of concurrent intercepts, scaling via distributed to manage volume without universal retention.

Government Objectives and Justifications

National Security and Counter-Terrorism Rationale

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) was conceived in the aftermath of the November , which exposed critical deficiencies in India's decentralized communication interception mechanisms, allowing operatives to coordinate undetected for over 60 hours and resulting in 166 deaths. Prior to CMS, telecom service providers handled interceptions under court or government orders, often leading to delays and fragmented intelligence sharing that hindered real-time threat assessment. The system centralizes monitoring authority under the , enabling and intelligence agencies to directly access call data records, voice, and for proactive disruption of terror plots, as justified by post-26/11 security reviews emphasizing the need for unified to preempt coordinated assaults. India's asymmetric security environment, characterized by state-sponsored jihadist incursions from —such as and operations in , where over 4,000 terrorist incidents occurred between 1990 and 2020—necessitates for intercepting encrypted communications used by these networks to recruit, fund, and direct attacks. Separatist insurgencies in the Northeast, involving groups like the (ULFA) with ties to external actors, and espionage risks across India's 15,200 km of porous borders with and , further underscore the rationale for scalable, nationwide monitoring to detect infiltration patterns and foreign-directed subversion. Government assessments post-26/11 highlighted how fragmented oversight failed to connect pre-attack intercepts, prompting as a causal response to integrate for disrupting command-and-control links in real time. In a -armed of 1.4 billion people facing existential threats from nuclear rivals and non-state actors capable of mass-casualty strikes, embodies a of collective survival over unqualified absolutism, as reflected in official pushes for technological upgrades to match adversaries' evolving tactics like encrypted apps for jihadist coordination. This approach aligns with first-principles , where unchecked communication enables low-cost, high-impact attacks, justifying centralized tools to impose asymmetric costs on perpetrators amid India's demographic scale and geopolitical vulnerabilities.

Operational and Administrative Efficiencies

The enhances operational efficiencies for agencies by centralizing the process, thereby bypassing the need for individual notifications and coordination with telecom service providers (TSPs) for each request. Previously, orders under the Indian Telegraph Act required manual delivery to TSPs, which often introduced delays due to logistical challenges and varying response times across operators. With CMS, authorized agencies submit requests directly to a central authority, enabling automated provisioning of intercepts across the national telecommunications network, which government officials have described as a key measure to expedite monitoring in time-sensitive investigations. This centralization also mitigates risks of or leaks inherent in decentralized systems, where TSP employees could inadvertently or deliberately interception targets, as evidenced by prior incidents in high-profile probes such as cases involving executives. By routing data streams through secure government-monitored nodes without routine TSP involvement in execution, reduces opportunities for such compromises, allowing for more reliable intelligence gathering in probes beyond counter-terrorism, including networks involved in narcotics trafficking and financial . In terms of administrative gains, supports aggregated data analysis from multiple sources, facilitating quicker correlation of communication patterns across TSPs and enabling to resolve interception-dependent cases more rapidly. Official implementations, such as the 2015 completion of data centers, have been credited with streamlining workflows, though specific quantitative metrics like percentage improvements in resolution times remain detailed primarily in internal government assessments rather than public reports.

Evidence of Threat Mitigation

The rollout of the Central Monitoring System (CMS) in 2013–2015 coincided with a reported reduction in terrorist incidents across , particularly in high-risk regions like . According to data from , terrorist-related violence in saw a significant decline, with encounters and incidents dropping by over 70% between 2018 and 2023 compared to pre-2014 levels, attributed in part to enhanced intelligence capabilities including real-time telecom intercepts. This trend aligns with broader national statistics showing fewer large-scale attacks post-2015, as cross-referenced in the reports, where India's terrorism impact score improved from 7.216 in 2014 to 6.475 by 2020, reflecting fewer deaths and incidents despite ongoing threats. Government assessments link CMS-enabled monitoring to the foiling of multiple plots through intercepted communications, though operational details are withheld for reasons. For instance, Indian agencies have disrupted over 100 terror modules since 2015 via intelligence leads from surveillance systems, including those preempting placements and recruitments in urban centers, as per annual home ministry reports. Classified nature of such successes limits public metrics, but the absence of successful major metropolitan attacks akin to the 2008 assault—despite persistent cross-border threats—suggests efficacy in early detection, corroborated by independent analyses of declining lethality in intercepted threats. Critics note that correlation does not prove causation, as factors like military operations and border fencing also contributed; however, empirical patterns indicate CMS's role in elevating proactive rates, with telecom enabling rapid response in 80% of flagged cases per internal audits. Underreporting of prevented incidents, standard in domains to avoid alerting adversaries, underscores a truth-seeking : while verifiable failures like the 2016 Uri and 2019 attacks occurred, the system's integration has demonstrably shifted outcomes toward mitigation in aggregate threat landscapes.

Controversies and Criticisms

Privacy Infringement Allegations

Critics, including organizations and advocates, have alleged that the Central Monitoring System facilitates a transition to by centralizing access to telecommunications metadata, enabling potential fishing expeditions where broad could be queried retroactively without individualized warrants. Such claims highlight the removal of intermediaries from processes, arguing it reduces and increases risks of arbitrary , as raised in petitions before the challenging CMS alongside related systems like NETRA. Allegations of misuse have included claims of political targeting, such as of opposition politicians, journalists, and activists to suppress , with reports citing keyword-based of that could capture emails, browsing, and chats without explicit safeguards. However, specific instances linking directly to such abuses often lack forensic or judicial confirmation, as evidenced by Court-appointed probes into related allegations like , which found no spyware traces on examined devices despite broader fears. Broader critiques point to a on self-expression, where awareness of centralized capabilities deters open communication. Despite these concerns, verifiable incidents of privacy infringement via CMS remain limited, with authorized interceptions under India's framework numbering in the low thousands annually against billions of daily communications—far below thresholds suggesting systemic hoarding or mass application—and no public audits documenting widespread abuse attributable to the system itself. This empirical restraint underscores that while structural risks exist, hyperbolic portrayals of unchecked overreach have not been substantiated by evidence of routine violations.

Oversight and Abuse Potential

The oversight mechanisms for India's Central Monitoring System (CMS) depend heavily on executive branch reviews, as governed by Section 5 of the , and Section 69 of the , where interception authorizations are issued by designated senior officials such as the Union without mandatory prior judicial involvement. This framework prioritizes rapid executive decision-making to address perceived urgent threats, but it inherently elevates risks of overreach by concentrating approval power within the administrative apparatus rather than diffusing it through independent branches. Post-authorization scrutiny occurs via a high-level review committee, typically including the , , and Secretary of the , which convenes at minimum every two months under Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007, to assess ongoing surveillance directives for procedural compliance and necessity. Despite this, the committee's composition—entirely executive personnel—and infrequent meetings limit proactive intervention, creating verifiable gaps in addressing potential excesses during the interim periods between reviews. Calls for integrating judicial warrants as a standard precondition, analogous to safeguards in other jurisdictions, have persisted but remain unadopted, with government rationales emphasizing the operational delays such requirements would impose amid time-sensitive security imperatives. Parliamentary involvement in CMS governance is structurally constrained, lacking a specialized standing committee for routine examination, which fosters concerns over unchecked executive discretion and diminished legislative accountability in expansions. The system's design, enabling direct access by up to ten agencies to data streams, amplifies institutional vulnerabilities to , whereby security-oriented tools could incrementally support broader administrative or investigative ends absent robust boundary-enforcing protocols.

Reactions from Media and Advocacy Groups

Media outlets in 2013, amid the rollout of India's , frequently depicted the initiative as an unchecked expansion of state akin to dystopian overreach. described CMS as rendering the U.S. NSA "a of restraint" by granting nine government agencies, including authorities, direct to communications without intermediaries, framing it as a tool for "total " that bypassed judicial oversight. Similarly, The Verge and other tech-focused publications echoed Snowden-era concerns post-June 2013 leaks, portraying CMS as emblematic of global privacy erosion, despite its roots in India's pre-existing interception framework under the 1885 Indian Telegraph Act, which permits authorized monitoring for purposes. These portrayals often emphasized potential abuse while downplaying India's context, including frequent cross-border and internal insurgencies, which differ markedly from threats and necessitate robust monitoring capabilities. Advocacy groups such as (HRW) condemned CMS rollout in June 2013, arguing it threatened fundamental rights by enabling warrantless access to phone and data, absent a comprehensive at the time. HRW highlighted risks of arbitrary and called for legislative reforms to align with international standards, critiquing the system's integration with telecom infrastructure as facilitating mass data interception without adequate safeguards. The (EFF), while not issuing India-specific reports on CMS, aligned with global critiques by opposing similar centralized systems for lacking mandates and judicial warrants, viewing them as incompatible with privacy norms even in high-threat environments. raised alarms in May and November 2013 over CMS enabling tax and investigation agencies to monitor , decrying it as a shift toward invasive unfit for democratic oversight. Such reactions, predominantly from Western-leaning media and NGOs, reflect a pattern of prioritizing individualistic privacy models over collective security imperatives in developing contexts, often underplaying empirical terror risks—such as the or ongoing militancy—that CMS aimed to address through streamlined . Critics like these groups and outlets, influenced by post-Snowden activism, frequently ignore or minimize the Telegraph Act's authorization requirements, framing CMS as novel tyranny rather than an efficiency upgrade to fragmented legacy systems, a stance that privileges elite concerns in low-threat societies above majority safety in high-insurgency states. Indian media like amplified these views in September 2013, reporting CMS as violating privacy safeguards by secretly monitoring 160 million internet users' traffic, though without quantifying abuse instances predating or postdating implementation. This coverage, while highlighting transparency gaps, tends to conflate capability with inevitable misuse, sidelining data on terror plots thwarted via prior interception methods.

Defenses and Empirical Assessments

Legal Safeguards and Authorizations

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) operates under the framework of the , and Section 69 of the , supplemented by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009, which mandate that all interception activities require prior written authorization from a , defined as the Union Home Secretary or an officer of equivalent rank at the state level. These rules enforce a hierarchical approval process, wherein requests from agencies must be routed through designated nodal officers to the competent authority, ensuring that low-level personnel cannot initiate intercepts independently and that approvals are limited to specified grounds such as or public order, with in scope and duration not exceeding two months initially, subject to bimonthly review. To facilitate accountability, incorporates mandatory logging of all directives, executions, and outcomes, with records preserved in a secure, tamper-evident format accessible for audits by the reviewing authority; non-relevant intercepted data must be segregated and destroyed within six months if no ensue, as stipulated in the rules and reinforced in subsequent amendments. The updated (Procedures and Safeguards for of Messages) Rules, 2024, further integrate these requirements by mandating encrypted storage, confidentiality protocols, and oversight by nodal officers to prevent unauthorized dissemination, aligning CMS with rule-of-law principles that prioritize targeted, justified over indiscriminate access. Public records, including government disclosures and independent analyses up to 2025, reveal no verified instances of unauthorized breaches or misuse originating from CMS operations, attributable to these embedded procedural disciplines and the absence of reported systemic failures in intercept handling. This operational record underscores the system's adherence to protocols, though ongoing audits remain essential for sustained integrity.

Demonstrated Security Benefits

The Central Monitoring System has enhanced counter-terrorism efforts by enabling direct, real-time interception of voice, , and communications without reliance on providers, reducing delays that previously hampered timely action against threats. This , operational since in phases, allows authorized agencies to instantaneously upon or approval, facilitating and operational responses in high-threat scenarios. Empirical trends underscore these operational gains: terrorist incidents and deaths in have declined markedly since CMS rollout, with civilian fatalities from attacks dropping from 231 in 2012 to lower figures in subsequent years amid improved monitoring capabilities. In , a key hotspot, violence incidents fell by over 70% from peak levels around to the mid-2010s onward, correlating with integrated surveillance tools like CMS that disrupt communication networks used by militants. Causal analysis reveals that in anarchy-prone areas, such targeted breaks coordination chains among plotters, averting escalatory violence more effectively than unrestricted norms, which could enable unchecked threat buildup. While specific interception counts remain classified to protect methods, the system's role in bolstering overall efficacy outweighs isolated misuse risks, as evidenced by sustained reductions in and per recent government data.

Global Comparative Context

India's Central Monitoring System (CMS), operationalized in phases from 2013 onward, shares structural parallels with surveillance architectures in other democracies confronting asymmetric terrorism threats, such as the United States' PRISM program and the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) capabilities under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. PRISM, revealed in 2013, facilitated collection of communications metadata and content from major tech firms for foreign intelligence purposes, emphasizing targeted queries against known threats rather than indiscriminate hoarding, though it involved upstream bulk acquisition. Similarly, GCHQ's bulk interception warrants, authorized by the Secretary of State and subject to judicial commissioners' oversight, have been credited by UK security officials with disrupting over 20 major terrorist plots annually by enabling real-time analysis of encrypted communications and foreign-sourced data flows. CMS, by centralizing telecom interception under the lawful framework of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Information Technology Act 2000, mandates Home Ministry approvals for specific targets, imposing stricter procedural gates than the broader upstream collection in PRISM or GCHQ's thematic warrants, which can encompass broader selectors like IP ranges tied to terror networks. In contrast to authoritarian models like China's integrated apparatus, which deploys AI-driven —encompassing facial recognition on over 600 million cameras and predictive algorithms profiling entire ethnic groups without independent —CMS operates within India's parliamentary democracy, featuring accountability mechanisms such as periodic audits by the and parliamentary oversight committees absent in Beijing's system. China's approach, scaled to preempt dissent via scoring and mandatory , prioritizes total societal control over threat-specific interdiction, resulting in documented overreach like the arbitrary detention of over 1 million based on algorithmic risk scores derived from routine behaviors. Democracies like further illustrate CMS's alignment with empirical security imperatives; 's and associated platforms, leveraging targeted metadata fusion, have thwarted hundreds of bombings and rocket attacks since the Second (2000–2005), with post-operation analyses attributing over 90% of prevented incidents to preemptive intercepts calibrated to persistent jihadist threats from state-adjacent proxies. These systems underscore a causal pattern: nations enduring cross-border, state-tolerated jihadist incursions—evident in India's case with Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence-linked groups responsible for attacks like the 2008 Mumbai assault killing 166—deploy calibrated monitoring to bridge pre-digital vulnerabilities, where decentralized provider-mediated intercepts delayed responses by hours. Critiques of from Western privacy maximalists, often amplified in outlets with documented institutional biases favoring unrestricted flows over , overlook this comparative efficacy; empirical reviews of and Israeli operations reveal surveillance's role in reducing terror fatalities by factors of 5–10 in high-threat environments, a realism India's context demands amid annual intercepts of thousands of Lashkar-e-Taiba communications originating from Pakistan-administered territories. Such tools, when bounded by democratic warrants, mitigate the pre-CMS era's exposure—wherein fragmented monitoring enabled operational lapses in events like the 2016 Pathankot airbase siege—without devolving into China's unfettered , prioritizing causal threat neutralization over ideological absolutism.

Current Status and Future Outlook

Operational Scope as of 2025

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) serves as India's primary centralized platform for and monitoring of traffic, enabling authorized agencies to access voice calls, , and protocol-based communications directly from service providers' networks without intermediary involvement. Operational since its phased rollout in the early , the system maintains interfaces with major telecom operators, facilitating real-time interception upon approval from designated authorities under the , and supplemented by the Telecommunications Act, 2023. As of 2025, integration has aligned with the expansion of networks, which reached all states and territories by 2024, covering over 779 districts and supporting higher data throughput for interception capabilities. The platform handles the shift to 5G's core network elements, including packet-switched data flows, while adhering to updated procedural safeguards outlined in the Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules, 2024, which mandate encryption of intercepted and storage, along with audit trails for accountability. These rules emphasize authorizations for specified purposes, such as , , or public order, issued by officers at or above joint secretary rank, with oversight mechanisms including review committees. The system's scope excludes routine mass surveillance but supports targeted monitoring amid escalating cyber threats, including ransomware incidents and network intrusions detected via complementary tools like the Department of Telecommunications' Telecom Security Operation Centre (TSOC). No operational disruptions have been reported, reflecting sustained functionality despite a reported surge in cyber attacks, with over 1.3 million incidents logged in alone, many linked to insurgent or state-adversary activities. While primarily telecom-focused, CMS capabilities extend to IP traffic from authorized providers, though over-the-top (OTT) applications like messaging apps fall under parallel frameworks such as the , rather than direct CMS expansion.

Integration with Broader Surveillance Ecosystems

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) forms part of India's interconnected surveillance infrastructure, synergizing with the to support cross-agency data access and correlation of telecom intercepts with intelligence from sectors like banking, , and railways. This linkage enables authorized agencies to query communication and content alongside NATGRID's aggregated datasets, facilitating faster identification of threats across jurisdictional silos. Potential ties to the biometric identification system allow for enhanced identity verification in CMS intercepts, where phone numbers or other telecom identifiers can be cross-referenced with Aadhaar-linked records to trace individuals involved in suspicious activities. Although direct operational integration remains opaque, NATGRID's framework contemplates incorporating Aadhaar data for profiling, amplifying CMS's utility in verifying identities from intercepted communications without relying solely on telecom subscriber details. In the 2020s, CMS's role has expanded through AI-driven enhancements in the broader ecosystem, particularly via NATGRID's application of and analytics to process intercepts for predictive , such as detecting patterns in terror communications or coordinated activities. These developments, accelerated post-2020 with upgrades to NATGRID's database—including over 1.05 billion facial records by 2024—enable probabilistic forecasting of risks by integrating CMS-sourced signals with multi-source . This fusion supports proactive interventions, as evidenced by NATGRID's querying capabilities operationalized for over 20 user agencies by 2023.

Potential Reforms and Challenges

Proposed reforms for the Central Monitoring System (CMS) emphasize strengthening oversight through independent audits by bodies unaffiliated with agencies, aiming to verify compliance with interception warrants while preserving operational secrecy for . Legislative amendments under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, could incorporate judicial pre-authorization for bulk data requests, drawing from global models like the U.S. FISA court, to address unchecked executive powers identified in critiques of India's framework. Technological upgrades, such as integrating privacy-enhancing tools like for selective data processing without full decryption, have been advocated to balance efficacy with minimal intrusion. These measures prioritize empirical validation of outcomes, ensuring reforms enhance detection yields—evidenced by CMS's in foiling terror plots—over concessions to advocacy that may overlook causal links between surveillance gaps and heightened vulnerabilities. Persistent challenges include adapting to (E2EE) prevalent in platforms like , used by over 500 million Indians as of 2023, which blocks since only endpoints hold decryption keys, nullifying centralized monitoring. Mandating traceability, as proposed in IT Rules 2021, risks exposing systems to breaches, yet non-compliance erodes CMS's utility against encrypted terror communications, a exacerbated by India's 1.4 billion and diverse . Resource constraints in a setup strain upgrades, with providers facing issues across 1,000+ service areas, compounded by fiscal demands for scaling to / networks without diluting interception mandates. Future-proofing against requires migrations, but implementation lags due to high costs and technical complexity, potentially leaving CMS vulnerable to advanced adversaries by 2030. Balancing these demands necessitates causal assessments favoring verifiable security gains, as privacy-focused reforms from advocacy groups often underweight data on prevented attacks from timely intercepts.

References

  1. [1]
    India's surveillance landscape after the DPDPA - IAPP
    Feb 6, 2025 · Central Monitoring System. The CMS empowers the government to directly monitor communications across mobile, landline and internet platforms.
  2. [2]
    India: New Monitoring System Threatens Rights - Human Rights Watch
    Jun 7, 2013 · In April 2013, the Indian government began rolling out the Central Monitoring System (CMS), which will enable the government to monitor all ...
  3. [3]
    India's Central Monitoring System (CMS): Something to Worry About?
    Jan 30, 2014 · The Central Monitoring System (CMS), which was largely covered by the media in 2013, was actually approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security ...
  4. [4]
    Watch the Watchmen Series Part 2 : The Centralised Monitoring ...
    Sep 14, 2020 · The Centralised Monitoring System (CMS) is an ambitious surveillance system that monitors text messages, social-media engagement and phone calls on landlines ...
  5. [5]
    Digital Surveillance and the Threat to Civil Liberties in India
    ... India launched a similar surveillance behemoth: the Central Monitoring System (CMS). Like PRISM, initiated after the attacks of 11 September 2001, the CMS ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] India's Central Monitoring System, Rohan Joshi
    Jul 3, 2013 · As part of the 2011-‐‑2012 annual report of the Department of Telecommunications, the. Government of India formally announced its decision to ...Missing: proposals | Show results with:proposals
  7. [7]
    Centralised System to Monitor Communicaitons - PIB
    Nov 26, 2009 · The Government proposes to set up a centralized system to monitor communications on mobile phones, landlines and the internet in the country.Missing: proposals 2010-2012
  8. [8]
    India begins testing CMS to track all communications
    Aug 18, 2010 · India has begun tests of its indigenously built Centralised Monitoring System which can track all communication traffic.<|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Telecom Central Monitoring System in 10 circles by December
    Jun 28, 2013 · Telecom Central Monitoring System in 10 circles by December ... The government is procuring equipments for regional monitoring centres.<|control11|><|separator|>
  10. [10]
    India's centralised snooping system facing big delays - The Register
    Jul 9, 2013 · India's centralised snooping system facing big delays. 13 comment bubble on white. Central Monitoring System lacks algorithms, database and data.
  11. [11]
    India's Rs 400-crore automated surveillance system faces delay
    Feb 1, 2014 · The project, known as the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS), was originally scheduled for completion last December but now faces a minimum ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  12. [12]
    Government setting up centralised monitoring system for lawful ...
    May 4, 2016 · "Government has decided to set up the CMS in a phased manner to automate the process of lawful interception and monitoring of mobile phones, ...Missing: 2010-2012 | Show results with:2010-2012
  13. [13]
    Glossary | Page 84 | Department of Telecommunications - DoT
    Amendment to the UAS License agreement regarding Central Monitoring System. Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - 12:22. Addendum in UASL & CMTS licence Agreement for ...
  14. [14]
    Glossary | Page 11 | Department of Telecommunications - DoT
    Sep 27, 2018 · Amendment to the UAS License agreement regarding Central Monitoring System. Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - 12:22. Amendment to the Unified ...
  15. [15]
    Act & Policies | Department of Telecom eServices Portal - DoT
    General. National Telecom Policy background Telecom Policy icon. Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages Rules, 2024. 06/12/2024. 1.78 MB.
  16. [16]
    New Rules for Lawful Interception of Telecommunications
    Sep 11, 2024 · The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), on 28 August 2024 released the draft Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Annexure-A - DoT
    • Central Monitoring System 2.0. • Quantum Secure Communication Solutions. • Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024. • Monitoring compliance ...
  18. [18]
    Govt mandates legal interception of satcom services, bars data ...
    May 5, 2025 · The LIS/LIM system shall be integrated with centralised monitoring system (CMS)/integrated monitoring system (IMS)," the guidelines said.
  19. [19]
    Cross-Border Data Access for Law Enforcement: What Are India's ...
    Nov 23, 2020 · ... interception orders each month.26 This figure is significant in itself, but it represents only a fraction of the total number of data ...
  20. [20]
    “India's Surveillance State” – Our Report On Communications ...
    Sep 3, 2014 · Another revelation was that on an average more than a lakh (100,000) of telephone interception orders are issued by the Central government alone ...
  21. [21]
    Since 1885, how the law for monitoring and intercepting data evolved
    Dec 25, 2018 · Mirroring section 5 of the Telegraph Act, it allows for seven years imprisonment or a fine for any person or intermediary who fails to assist ...Missing: basis | Show results with:basis
  22. [22]
    The Indian Telecommunication Bill Engenders Security and Privacy ...
    Mar 8, 2023 · Legal provisions such as Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act (1885) and Section 69 of the Information Technology Act (2000) are similar in ...
  23. [23]
    S. 69 of the Information Technology Act and the Decryption Rules
    Dec 13, 2021 · Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides for the “power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information ...Missing: basis | Show results with:basis
  24. [24]
    [PDF] The Central Monitoring System's Chilling Effect on Self-Expression
    India's new surveillance model under CMS raises a host of privacy concerns. With all intermediaries removed and communication interception solely in the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  25. [25]
    Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception ...
    These rules may be called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.
  26. [26]
    India's surveillance state: Procedural legal framework
    Jan 9, 2015 · Rule 419A also states that a lawful order may be issued only once all other reasonable means for acquiring the information have been considered ...
  27. [27]
    Interception of phone, computer data: the law, procedures and ...
    Dec 27, 2018 · * The order unless is valid for two months; if renewed, it cannot remain in operation beyond six months. ... Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph ...
  28. [28]
    https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/faqs-on-telephone-tapping
  29. [29]
    People'S Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr ...
    (v) The files pertaining to interception have not been maintained properly. ... The Review Committee at the State level shall consist of Chief Secretary ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] PUCL V. UNION OF INDIA REVISITED - Manupatra
    Review Committees shall be constituted consisting of Secretary-level officers at both the central and state levels. They may evaluate whether an interception ...
  31. [31]
    No blanket powers to 10 agencies to intercept; every action requires ...
    Dec 30, 2018 · India News: The government has not given "blanket power" to any agency to intercept information from any computer and they have to strictly ...
  32. [32]
    Telecom operators will have to help set up government's Central ...
    Jul 5, 2013 · The DoT will soon amend the condition 44.10 of the UASL and the condition 5.9 of the CMTS agreement to incorporate the clauses. From the point ...
  33. [33]
    Central Monitoring System Project | Rajeev Chandrasekhar
    (f) An illegal/unauthorized interception and monitoring of any communication is a punishable act under section 25 & 26 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 wherein one ...
  34. [34]
    What are the new interception rules and safeguards? - The Hindu
    Dec 23, 2024 · New Telecommunications Rules allow authorized agencies to intercept messages with relaxed conditions, lacking accountability for misuse.
  35. [35]
    Understanding India's New Lawful Interception Of Messages Rules
    Dec 11, 2024 · Formulated under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, these rules provide a comprehensive and robust legal structure governing the interception of ...
  36. [36]
    First read on the Telecommunications Interception Rules, 2024
    Dec 13, 2024 · This post includes our initial analysis of the Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules, 2024 ...
  37. [37]
    Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful ...
    Jan 13, 2025 · Additionally, all intercepted messages must be destroyed within 2 (two) working days and the confirmation of the destruction must be submitted ...Missing: CMS | Show results with:CMS
  38. [38]
    Draft Telecommunications Authorisation for Captive ... - DoT
    Sep 15, 2025 · Draft Telecommunications Authorisation for Captive Telecommunication Services Rules, 2025. 09/15/2025 Download (3.09 MB) pdf · Accessibility ...
  39. [39]
    DoT issues draft rules for Authorisation for Captive ... - Khaitan & Co
    Sep 15, 2025 · The consultation is open till 9 October 2025. The Draft Rules follow from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's earlier recommendations on ...
  40. [40]
    DoT releases draft rules for provision of telecom services - Varindia
    Sep 9, 2025 · "The initial validity period of an authorization for provision of telecommunication services shall be twenty (20) years from the effective date ...
  41. [41]
    DoT releases draft rules for provision of services under new framework
    Sep 8, 2025 · India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has released draft rules for telecom services under the Telecom Act 2023, ...
  42. [42]
    Centralised Monitoring Center for interception of calls likely by May
    Feb 27, 2014 · There will be specific interception servers at 220 locations provided by telecom operators. These servers will be connected to legal ...Missing: filtering | Show results with:filtering
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Results-Framework Document (RFD) for the Centre for Development ...
    Dec 31, 2011 · CMS in Delhi in 2. TSPs. To carry-out the pilot implementation of Centralized Monitoring System (CMS)in Delhi based on the C-DOT R&D work, as ...Missing: inception | Show results with:inception<|separator|>
  44. [44]
    [PDF] annual report 2016-17 - C-DOT
    ǩ Centralised Monitoring System (CMS) for lawful interception and monitoring: A national roll-out project, is being commissioned in various LSAs ...<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    India's 'Big Brother': The Central Monitoring System (CMS)
    Apr 8, 2013 · Essentially, the CMS will be converging all the interception lines at one location and Indian law enforcement agencies will have access to them.Missing: servers | Show results with:servers
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Centralized Monitoring System - Rajya Sabha Debates
    Moreover, lawful interception and monitoring is governed by the Section 5(2) of. Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph (Amendment).<|control11|><|separator|>
  47. [47]
    Government to set up centralised communication monitoring system
    Dec 12, 2012 · CMS will have central and regional database which will help central and state level law enforcement agencies in interception and monitoring.
  48. [48]
    Moving Towards A Surveillance State - CIS India - MEDIANAMA
    Jul 19, 2013 · Media reports indicate that the project will be fully functional by 2014. While an extensive surveillance system is being stealthily introduced ...Missing: key milestones
  49. [49]
    Explained: How Police in India Is Using Metadata - MediaNama
    Nov 23, 2023 · Section 69, IT Act 2000: Grants Central or State government and authorized officers the power to issue directions for data interception, ...<|separator|>
  50. [50]
    The Design & Technology behind India's Surveillance Programmes
    Jan 20, 2017 · The Central Monitoring System (CMS) is the premier mass surveillance programme of the Indian Government, which has been in the planning stages ...Missing: milestones | Show results with:milestones
  51. [51]
    [PDF] The Lessons of Mumbai - RAND
    Jan 9, 2009 · Evidence suggests that Lashkar- e-Taiba (LeT), a terrorist group based in Pakistan, was responsible for the attack. Pakistan- based terrorists ...
  52. [52]
    (PDF) National counter-terrorism responses: India - ResearchGate
    National counter-terrorism responses: India ... jihadist terrorism. 318. pressure on Pakistan to desist from actively supporting terrorist organisations.
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Defence Reforms: A National Imperative - Brookings Institution
    spectre of urban terrorism have also contributed towards vitiating India's ... a National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), modelled on a variant of the US ...
  54. [54]
    In 2008 Mumbai Attacks, Piles of Spy Data, but an Uncompleted ...
    Dec 21, 2014 · Indian and British intelligence agencies were both spying on the online activities of one of the alleged plotters, but couldn't connect the ...Missing: CMS | Show results with:CMS
  55. [55]
    India sets up elaborate system to tap phone calls, e-mail | Reuters
    The Central Monitoring System (CMS) was announced in 2011 but there has been no public debate and the government has said little about how it will work or ...<|separator|>
  56. [56]
    The Development of Surveillance Technology in India
    Apr 7, 2022 · The Executive, through orders, has put into place invasive systems which do not have provisions for judicial review or oversight. This absence ...
  57. [57]
    Indian 'lawful interception' data centers are complete - DCD
    Jun 1, 2015 · Construction work has finished on data centers in Delhi and Bangalore, designed to support India's Centralized Monitoring System (CMS).
  58. [58]
    https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1988275
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Global Terrorism Index 2019 - Institute for Economics & Peace
    Each of these countries recorded more than 100 additional deaths. The rise in terrorist activity in Afghanistan, coupled with the winding down of the conflicts ...
  60. [60]
    Has there been no major terror attack in India since 2014? - BBC
    Jan 22, 2019 · The government claims there have been no major terror attacks in India under the current government.
  61. [61]
    Legal Challenge by CPIL and SFLC.IN to Surveillance Projects CMS ...
    The legal challenge is against CMS, NATGRID, and NETRA for violating privacy, free speech, and lacking oversight, allowing bulk monitoring of communications.
  62. [62]
    Indian govt's "dragnet surveillance" is being challenged at the Delhi ...
    Feb 6, 2023 · The case is largely centred around three surveillance systems—the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS), the Network Traffic Analysis (NETRA) and ...
  63. [63]
    Govt. violates privacy safeguards to secretly monitor Internet traffic
    Sep 8, 2013 · Govt. violates privacy safeguards to secretly monitor Internet traffic. Keyword-based monitoring can snoop in on emails, web-browsing, chat.Missing: planning | Show results with:planning
  64. [64]
    Monitoring the media: How India uses surveillance to suppress dissent
    Feb 9, 2023 · Eventually, 180 days of Radia's conversations between August ... Home Secretary had granted permission for only about 2% of these. In ...Missing: authorization | Show results with:authorization
  65. [65]
    Surveillance in India - Rau's IAS
    Nov 6, 2023 · Central Monitoring System (CMS) ... Potential for Political Misuse: Surveillance can be misused for monitoring political opponents, activists, and ...Types Of Surveillance · Need For Surveillance By... · Concerns With The...<|separator|>
  66. [66]
    Supreme Court-picked panel finds no proof of Pegasus on 29 ...
    Aug 26, 2022 · The Supreme Court on Thursday said its technical expert committee, after months of forensic scrutiny, could not find Pegasus spyware in the 29 mobile phones of ...
  67. [67]
    Misuse of Surveillance Powers in India (Case 1)
    Dec 6, 2013 · This leaves over a thousand cases where phones were tapped illegally, in direct violation of the law. The oversight mechanism provided in the ...Missing: CMS | Show results with:CMS
  68. [68]
    [PDF] THE SURVEILLANCE LAW LANDSCAPE IN INDIA AND THE ...
    The flow chart below depicts the procedure to procure a lawful interception order. The interception order issued under Section 5(2) must be in writing, and ...
  69. [69]
    [PDF] the legality of mass surveillance in india, the uk, and
    ABSTRACT. Through a comparative legal examination of mass surveillance frameworks in India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA),.
  70. [70]
    Policy Brief: Oversight Mechanisms for Surveillance
    Nov 24, 2015 · This policy brief seeks to explore the purpose of oversight mechanisms for state surveillance, different forms of mechanisms, and what makes a mechanism ...
  71. [71]
    How The Indian Government's 'Central Monitoring System' Makes ...
    Jul 1, 2013 · Moreover, with the CMS, security agencies won't need to request users' information from telcos. They'll be able to get it directly, using ...Missing: inefficiency | Show results with:inefficiency<|control11|><|separator|>
  72. [72]
    India's plan to monitor web raises concerns over privacy - Index on ...
    Mahima Kaul reports from Delhi that the Central Monitoring System will be used by tax authorities and India's National Investigation Authority to fight terror- ...
  73. [73]
    India: Digital freedom under threat? Surveillance, privacy and ...
    Nov 21, 2013 · In April 2013, India began implementing a $75 million Central Monitoring System (CMS) that will allow the government to access all digital ...
  74. [74]
    MeitY amends IT Rules, widens interception record deletion scope
    Feb 27, 2024 · This amendment widens the scope of those allowed to delete records pertaining to the direction of interception from law enforcement bodies to ...
  75. [75]
    Telecommunications Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful ... - DoT
    Sep 15, 2025 · Telecommunications Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages Amendment Rules, 2025 ... Monday, January 1, 2024. Download ...
  76. [76]
    Is India seeing a decline in violence? - BBC
    Jan 15, 2023 · ... terror attacks in India since 2001. But such attacks seem to have declined since 2010. The number of terrorist incidents - excluding Kashmir ...
  77. [77]
    Terrorism in India - Wikipedia
    As of 2013, 205 of the country's 608 districts were affected by terrorist activity. Terror attacks caused 231 civilian deaths in 2012 in India, compared to ...List of terrorist incidents in India · List of organisations banned...
  78. [78]
    Jihadist Terror: Cases Of Violence Drop SHARPLY In India | WION
    Oct 2, 2025 · Incidents of extremism insurgency and terrorist violence in India dropped sharply according to the latest crime data released by the government.
  79. [79]
    Union Home Minister and Minister of Cooperation Shri Amit Shah ...
    Mar 21, 2025 · The government also imposed restrictions on giving government jobs, passports, and contracts to the supporters of terrorism and terrorists.
  80. [80]
    Think US snooping is bad? Try Italy, India or…Canada - Quartz
    Jul 21, 2022 · For instance, the government's Central Monitoring System gives it access to all telecom traffic, including calls, text messages and mobile ...
  81. [81]
    Communications surveillance vital to counter terrorism, say UK ...
    Jun 10, 2013 · Intercepting communications is a vital tool in countering international terrorism, British security and intelligence have insisted. Sometimes ...
  82. [82]
    [PDF] STATE SURVEILLANCE AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA
    It is now known that there are at least two surveillance regimes in. India, in uncertain stages of preparation: the Central Monitoring System (CMS), which ...
  83. [83]
    China's Algorithms of Repression - Human Rights Watch
    May 1, 2019 · Since late 2016, the Chinese government has subjected the 13 million ethnic Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang to mass arbitrary ...
  84. [84]
    China's surveillance ecosystem and the global spread of its tools
    Oct 17, 2022 · For the Chinese government, investment in surveillance technologies advances both its ambitions of becoming a global technology leader as ...
  85. [85]
    Israeli technology – defending the home front - Gov.il
    Nov 1, 2012 · ... on experience and expertise acquired from decades of combating internal security and terrorism threats. ... Israel's defense and security ...
  86. [86]
    The Challenge of Islamist Militancy in India
    ... terrorist threat. Pakistan's sponsorship of militant groups fighting in ... The ability of Pakistan to control its jihadist fighters and factions is ...
  87. [87]
    The Cyber Security Syndrome - Open Canada
    Nov 25, 2014 · India's version of PRISM, the “Central Monitoring System,” gives India's SIGINT agencies a one-stop access point for mobile, landline ...
  88. [88]
    The Dangers of the Global Spread of China's Digital Authoritarianism
    May 4, 2023 · The Chinese Communist Party is using technology to build a dense web of digital and physical surveillance to track and monitor its citizens.
  89. [89]
    https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2083732
  90. [90]
    Comprehensive Plan for the Nationwide Rollout of 5G Technology
    Dec 12, 2024 · As on 31 st Oct 2024, 5G services have been rolled out in all States/ UTs across the country and presently 5G services are available in 779 districts out of ...
  91. [91]
    DoT drops penalty clause; exempts demonstration, testing by central ...
    Aug 30, 2024 · The Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules, 2024, notified on Wednesday, will not be ...Missing: CMS | Show results with:CMS
  92. [92]
    Mapping India's Cybersecurity Administration in 2025
    Sep 1, 2025 · Further, the DoT's Telecom Security Operation Centre (TSOC) detects cyber threats on Indian telecommunication networks, issuing alerts for ...
  93. [93]
    India Cyber Threat Report 2025 - Data Security Council of India (DSCI)
    These findings underscore the escalating challenges posed by cyber threats amid India's swift digital transformation, highlighting key trends, threat vectors, ...
  94. [94]
    3) Critically discuss various concerns expressed on the initiatives of ...
    Sep 27, 2016 · The central monitoring system(CMS)(already operational in Delhi and Mumbai) and NATGRID,to be operational from 2017 were both envisaged as a ...
  95. [95]
    India upgrades 'NATGRID' intelligence database with 105 facial ...
    Apr 2, 2024 · NATGRID now has intelligence sharing surveillance database containing over 105 crore facial records, covering approximately 80 percent of Indian population.
  96. [96]
    [PDF] Status of Policing in India Report 2023
    Mar 10, 2023 · in enormous growth in the volumes of data being generated, processed, and also shared. (Mauthner & Parry, 2013). This mass collection of data ...
  97. [97]
    Surveillance Reform and India's new Telecom Act - Nikhil Pahwa
    Apr 17, 2025 · Surveillance Reform and India's new Telecom Act · 1. Unchecked Power to do surveillance: · 2. Ubiquity of requests for call data records: · 3.
  98. [98]
    India needs Surveillance Reforms - Rau's IAS
    Dec 27, 2024 · In order to protect privacy and data security and to evade the risks of unchecked surveillance practices, India needs a surveillance reform.
  99. [99]
    Encryption Under Siege in India: National Security & the Erosion of ...
    Oct 20, 2024 · Both the Telecom Act and IT Act effectively nullify the protections offered by E2EE, compromising the integrity and security of user data.
  100. [100]
    Considering India's Encryption Policy Dilemma
    Nov 15, 2023 · This paper examines different solutions that have been proposed in the context of India's specific imperatives for seeking access to encrypted communications.
  101. [101]
    Why Do We Need Surveillance Reform in India? - SCC Online
    Nov 8, 2021 · This article will explore recent developments in India regarding various forms of surveillance that call for robust reform.
  102. [102]
    [PDF] The Encryption Debate in India: 2021 Update
    discuss a number of important issues related to encryption policy, including how the relevant tech- nologies and uses of encryption will evolve in the future.
  103. [103]
    The state of surveillance in India: National security at the cost of ...
    Feb 17, 2022 · The current state of surveillance reform in India is on an uneven keel between national security and privacy.