India’s Digital Crossroads: Can a Unified Regulator Fix the Tangled Web of Tech Governance? 

A new report from the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP) argues that India’s digital governance is critically hampered by a fragmented regulatory structure, where overlapping jurisdictions from the telecom, broadcasting, and IT ministries create confusion, stifle innovation, and impose high compliance costs on businesses attempting to offer converged services.

To address this, the study proposes a radical “One Ministry, One Law, One Regulator, One Tribunal” framework, advocating for a unified regulatory body to replace the current siloed system, guided by a four-step RACE blueprint—Recognize technological convergence, Adopt internal governmental reorganization, Catalyze with technology-neutral policies, and Encourage innovation—while cautioning that such a monumental reform must carefully navigate the challenges of political resistance and over-centralization to successfully build a coherent foundation for India’s future digital economy.

India’s Digital Crossroads: Can a Unified Regulator Fix the Tangled Web of Tech Governance? 

In today’s India, your smartphone is a cinema, a bank, a clinic, and a classroom. You might use the same device and internet connection to stream a movie on Netflix (broadcasting), consult a doctor via video call (IT/telecom), and pay for your groceries with UPI (digital payments/IT). This is technological convergence in action—a seamless blend of services that defies old-world categories. 

Yet, governing this integrated digital experience is a labyrinth of laws drafted for the telegraph, cable television, and a pre-internet era. A new, pivotal report from the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP), “Governing Digital India,” sounds a clarion call: India’s fragmented regulatory structure is stifling innovation and creating a compliance nightmare. The proposed remedy is as bold as it is necessary: “One Ministry, One Law, One Regulator, One Tribunal.” 

The Anatomy of a Digital Quagmire 

The CSEP report, authored by Deepak Maheshwari and Bhavna Sharma, diagnoses the problem with startling clarity. The digital ecosystem is managed by a patchwork of ministries and regulators whose boundaries have been erased by progress. 

• The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) governs the “carriage” or the pipes through which data flows. 

• The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) controls the “content” that flows through broadcast channels. 

• The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) oversees the IT industry and e-governance. 

• The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) handles licensing and infrastructure. 

• Cybersecurity is a shared, and often confused, responsibility between MeitY, DoT, and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). 

This siloed structure creates absurd real-world hurdles. The report highlights that to offer a relatively simple service like IPTV (Internet Protocol Television), a company needs a license from the DoT under the Telegraph Act of 1885 and registration with the MIB under the Cable TV Network Act of 1995. Imagine building a 21st-century service with regulations from the 19th and 20th centuries. 

The consequences are severe: 

• Regulatory Overlap and Confusion: Businesses don’t know which regulator to approach, leading to delays and inconsistent rulings. 

• High Compliance Costs: Navigating multiple ministries and legal frameworks is expensive and time-consuming, especially for startups. 

• Stifled Innovation: The fear of regulatory uncertainty can deter investment in new, convergent services like telemedicine, edtech, and the Internet of Things (IoT). 

• Ambiguity in Accountability: When something goes wrong—a data breach on a streaming platform, for instance—it’s unclear who is ultimately responsible. 

The RACE Framework: A Blueprint for Reform 

Merely identifying the problem isn’t enough. The CSEP report provides a structured, four-pillar framework to guide India’s digital governance reform, aptly named RACE. 

1. Recognise: The first step is for the government to formally and unequivocally acknowledge that technological convergence is not a future possibility but a present reality. This means reviving the spirit of the long-lapsed Convergence Communications Bill of 2001, which was a forward-looking attempt to create a unified regulator but lapsed in 2004. Acknowledgment is the foundation upon which all other reforms are built.
2. Adopt: Recognition must be followed by internal reorganization. The report proposes two potential models:

• The Two-Vertical Model: Creating two clear pillars—one for “Carriage” (managing networks, spectrum, infrastructure) and another for “Content” (overseeing all media, from news broadcasters to OTT platforms). 

• The Unified Ministry Model: A more ambitious consolidation into a single Ministry of Digital Ecosystem, merging the digital-related functions of MeitY, DoT, and MIB. 

3. Catalyse: With a new structure in place, the government must catalyse growth through technology-neutral policies. This involves:

• Unified Licensing: Moving away from service-specific licenses to a general authorization that allows companies to offer any digital service. 

• Harmonised Spectrum Management: Treating spectrum as a unified resource for all communication services, not segregating it for telecom, broadcasting, or satellite. 

• Future-Proof Legislation: Replacing the Telegraph Act, the Cable TV Act, and the IT Act’s outdated sections with a single, principles-based Digital India Act. 

4. Encourage: Finally, the state must transition from being a restrictive controller to an enabling facilitator. This means creating “regulatory sandboxes” where innovators can test new products without the full burden of compliance, simplifying KYC norms, and actively supporting Indian startups. The goal is to foster a competitive marketplace while robustly protecting consumer and citizen rights.

The “One Regulator” Model: Power and Perils 

The most ambitious proposal is the creation of a single, super-regulator for the digital domain. This would be an evolved, empowered version of TRAI or a brand-new entity, overseeing everything from network tariffs to content guidelines to data privacy principles. 

The compelling advantages are clear: 

• Regulatory Certainty: Businesses get one clear point of contact and a consistent set of rules. 

• Holistic Policy-Making: The regulator can view the digital ecosystem as an interconnected whole, preventing policy contradictions. 

• Efficiency Gains: Faster decision-making and reduced red tape accelerate digital adoption. 

However, the report wisely cautions against the perils of this model: 

• The Danger of Over-Centralisation: Concentrating too much power in one body could create a digital leviathan, risking regulatory capture or a one-size-fits-all approach that stifles niche sectors. 

• The Need for Specialised Oversight: Issues like market competition (handled by the CCI), data protection (by the upcoming Data Protection Board), and national cybersecurity are specialised fields. A monolithic regulator cannot be an expert in all of them. 

The solution, therefore, lies not in a monolithic structure but in a hub-and-spoke model. A unified digital regulator would act as the hub, while specialised bodies like the CCI and cybersecurity agencies act as spokes, with mandatory coordination mechanisms to ensure a cohesive national strategy. 

The Global Playbook: Lessons for India 

No country has a perfect model, as digital governance is deeply rooted in its political and cultural context. However, the CSEP report’s global benchmarking offers valuable lessons: 

• Singapore’s IMDA: The Infocomm Media Development Authority is a stellar example of a converged regulator, seamlessly overseeing both telecom and media. Its clarity and predictability are key reasons Singapore is a regional digital hub. 

• United Kingdom’s Ofcom: Ofcom regulates communications, broadcasting, and content, operating with a “whole-of-society” approach. It demonstrates how a single regulator can effectively manage both carriage and content without compromising on either. 

• United States’ Coordiated Approach: The US has multiple agencies (FCC, FTC, NTIA) but operates under a “light-touch” philosophy and strong inter-agency coordination, fostering innovation while managing oversight. 

• China’s CAC Model: China’s system, led by the powerful Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), is unified and security-obsessed. It offers a cautionary tale on the risks of combining regulatory power with state control and censorship. 

The Road Ahead: Navigating the Political Economy of Reform 

The biggest challenge is not conceptual but practical. Administrative reform on this scale faces immense inertia. 

• Political and Bureaucratic Resistance: Ministries are reluctant to cede turf and the power that comes with it. 

• Legislative Logjam: Passing a new, overarching law requires significant political capital and parliamentary time. 

• Transition Complexity: Migrating thousands of existing licenses and authorizations to a new system is a Herculean task. 

The report suggests entrusting NITI Aayog with the role of coordinating with state governments, which are crucial for on-ground issues like rights-of-way for laying fiber. It also emphasizes the need for transparency through public consultations, performance audits of regulators, and oversight by parliamentary committees. 

Conclusion: An Imperative for a $5 Trillion Economy 

India stands at a digital crossroads. Its “techno-nationalist” policy stance, evident in the success of Aadhaar and UPI, has proven the state’s capacity to build at scale. However, building the platforms is only half the battle. Governing the evolving ecosystem atop them is the next great test. 

The CSEP report is more than an academic exercise; it is a strategic imperative for an aspiring global power. As India aims to become a $5 trillion economy, a coherent, unified, and forward-looking digital governance framework is not a luxury—it is the very bedrock upon which its future innovation, security, and economic growth will be built. The blurring of technological boundaries is the opportunity. Re-imagining the institutions that govern them is the challenge India must now embrace.