Recording job interviews in India: the telecom offence, the DPDP Act and what applies in 2026

No Indian statute requires every party's consent before a participant records their own phone or video call, and none expressly allows it either: the Telecommunications Act, 2023 makes it an offence to "intercept a message unlawfully" without saying whether a participant's own recording counts. The larger change is data protection. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and its Rules, notified on November 13, 2025, phase in notice, consent, retention and rights duties over eighteen months, to May 2027. As of October 2026, the practical answer is the same either way: tell the candidate, ask before you record or transcribe, and keep the transcript only as long as the hiring decision needs it.

This page adds India to our country series, which also covers Australia, Canada, Germany and the UK. It is written for recruiters, agency consultants and hiring managers who interview candidates located in India by phone or video, including from the US.

India's rules at a glance

Is it legal to record a job interview in India?

There is no Indian equivalent of the US federal one-party consent rule, and no equivalent of the all-party consent statutes in Australian states or the German Criminal Code. The closest rule is section 42(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, which punishes anyone who "directly or indirectly or through personation" intercepts a message unlawfully, with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to two crore rupees, or both. The Act defines "message" to include sound and video, but it does not define interception or say whether a person who is a party to the call can intercept it.

We found no Indian statute that answers the participant question directly, which is why the safer course for a business is not to rely on silence. Ask the candidate before you record, and get a clear yes. Asking also gives you the evidence the DPDP Act will expect: section 6(10) says that where consent is the basis for processing and a question arises in a proceeding, the organisation must prove it gave notice and obtained consent.

Which data protection rules apply in October 2026?

The DPDP Act was enacted on August 11, 2023, according to the government's Press Information Bureau backgrounder. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (G.S.R. 846(E), dated November 13, 2025) set the timetable in rule 1:

• On publication: rules 1, 2 and 17 to 21, which set up the Data Protection Board.
• One year after publication: rule 4, on consent managers.
• Eighteen months after publication: rules 3, 5 to 16, 22 and 23, including the notice rule (3), security safeguards (6), breach notice (7), retention (8) and data principal rights (14). By our count that is May 13, 2027.

The government's backgrounder describes this as "an eighteen-month period for phased compliance." Until the main duties apply, the private-sector rule in force is section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which makes a body corporate that handles "sensitive personal data or information" liable to compensate for negligent security. Section 44(2)(a) of the DPDP Act omits section 43A once that amendment takes effect. A recording made today may still be on your systems in May 2027, so it makes sense to build the DPDP process now.

What will the DPDP Act require for a recorded interview?

The Act covers digital personal data, including data collected in non-digital form and digitised later (section 3(a)), so an audio file, a transcript and AI-written notes about a candidate are all in scope. The duties that matter most for interviews:

• Notice before or with the consent request (section 5(1)). It must describe the personal data and the purpose, how to withdraw consent and exercise rights, and how to complain to the Board. Rule 3 adds that the notice must stand on its own, give "an itemised description" of the data, and give a link for withdrawing consent and exercising rights. Section 5(3) requires the option to read it in English or a language in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution.
• Consent that is real (section 6(1)). It must be "free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous with a clear affirmative action," and limited to the data necessary for the purpose. A spoken "yes" in answer to a clear question meets the affirmative-action part better than silence after an announcement.
• Withdrawal as easy as consent (section 6(4)). If a candidate says "please stop recording," stop.
• Legitimate uses without consent (section 7). Section 7(a) covers data a person "voluntarily provided" for a specified purpose, and section 7(i) covers processing "for the purposes of employment." The Act does not say whether a job applicant who is not yet an employee falls under 7(i), so for a recording, plan on notice and consent rather than relying on it.
• Accuracy for decisions (section 8(3)). Where personal data is likely to be used to make a decision that affects the person, the organisation must ensure it is complete, accurate and consistent. That matters if a transcript or AI summary feeds a hiring decision.

Can candidates ask for the recording, and how long can you keep it?

Once the rights provisions apply, a candidate who gave consent can ask for a summary of the personal data being processed and the processing activities, plus the identities of other data fiduciaries and processors it was shared with (section 11), and can ask for correction or erasure (section 12). Rule 14 requires every data fiduciary to publish how to make a request and to answer grievances within a period "not exceeding ninety days." For a request playbook, see candidate data access requests.

On retention, section 8(7) requires erasure when consent is withdrawn or "as soon as it is reasonable to assume that the specified purpose is no longer being served," and the organisation must have its processors erase too. Rule 8(3) adds a floor: personal data, associated traffic data and processing logs must be kept for at least one year from the processing, for the government-access purposes listed in the Rules' Seventh Schedule, and then erased unless another law requires longer. Reconcile the two in your policy, for example by keeping the minimum record the rule requires and deleting working copies once the hiring decision is final. Our candidate data retention policy template has a starting structure.

What if you interview from the US and the candidate is in India?

Section 3 of the DPDP Act applies to processing within India, and to processing outside India "in connection with any activity related to offering of goods or services to Data Principals within the territory of India." A recruiting agency that offers its placement services to job seekers in India is closer to that test than a US employer hiring for itself, but the Act does not settle the point. If your recruiters, vendors or servers are in India, the processing is inside India anyway.

Transfers out of India are allowed unless the government restricts a country by notification (section 16(1)), and rule 15 lets the government set requirements for making data available to a foreign state. Check whether any notification applies before moving transcripts. On the US side, your own state's recording law still governs your end of the call; see two-party consent states.

Can you use an AI note taker or transcription service?

Yes, with the same notice and consent, but the organisation stays responsible. Section 8(1) makes the data fiduciary responsible for processing done on its behalf by a data processor, and section 8(2) says a processor may be engaged for activity related to offering goods or services "only under a valid contract." In practice:

• Name the tool's role in the notice: transcription, AI summaries, scoring, or all three.
• Ask the vendor where audio and transcripts are processed and stored, how long it keeps them, and whether it trains models on them.
• Prefer a tool that does not put a bot into the call, so the candidate hears about capture from you rather than from a stranger's name in the participant list. Our guide to whether AI note takers are legal in interviews covers the general questions.

Interview Signal, for example, shows a read-aloud consent line and has a one-click pause; audio goes to a speech-to-text provider in short chunks during the call and is not retained, while transcripts and notes stay on the interviewer's computer. The transcript is still the candidate's personal data, so the rules above still apply.

A consent line for interviews with candidates in India

Put a short version in the invitation, then read this before anything is captured:

"Before we begin: I'd like to record and transcribe this call so I can
focus on our conversation and keep an accurate record for assessing
your application. The recording and notes are used only for this
hiring process and deleted [period] after it ends. You can say no, or
ask me to stop at any point, and it won't affect your application.
Is that okay with you?"

[If yes] "Thank you." Start the tool.
[If no]  "No problem." Take notes by hand.

Offer the full notice in English, and in the candidate's preferred Eighth Schedule language if you can. More wording options are in our interview recording consent script.

Checklist before you record interviews in India

• Candidate asked before recording or transcription starts, and the "yes" noted.
• Written notice ready that meets section 5 and rule 3: itemised data, purpose, withdrawal link, rights, complaint route.
• Handwritten notes offered as a real alternative, with no effect on the application.
• Vendor contract in place for any transcription or AI tool; storage location and training use confirmed.
• Retention schedule that reconciles section 8(7) erasure with the one-year floor in rule 8(3).
• A published way for candidates to ask for access, correction or erasure, answered within ninety days.
• Calendar note to re-check the DPDP commencement dates before May 2027.

Interviewing elsewhere in Asia-Pacific? See our pages on Singapore, the Philippines and Japan.