New Delhi — The digital governance in India remains fragmented across ministries and agencies, slowing innovation and creating regulatory confusion, a new study by the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP) has found.
The report, titled Governing Digital India, says that while technologies and services have converged, the laws and institutions governing them have not. It argues that the boundaries between telecommunications, broadcasting and information technology have blurred, demanding a new, unified framework.
Authored by Deepak Maheshwari and Bhavna Sharma, the study proposes the creation of a single ministry and regulator to manage the country’s fast-evolving digital ecosystem. The proposed structure is summarised as “One Ministry, One Law, One Regulator, One Tribunal.”
The authors warn that fragmented governance leads to overlaps, inconsistent policies and higher compliance costs for businesses. They write that “even to offer a relatively simple service like IPTV, one requires a licence from the Department of Telecommunications under the Telegraph Act, 1885, and registration with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under the Cable TV Network Act, 1995.”
The report traces the problem to India’s historical division of responsibilities across multiple ministries. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulates carriage, while the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) oversees content.
Cybersecurity is shared among the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
This patchwork, the report notes, results in “ambiguity around ownership and accountability of certain subject matters, difficulty in doing business, and regulatory overreach.” It says that the lack of coordination increases the opportunity cost to the digital ecosystem and calls for “a holistic review and necessary revision” of India’s regulatory structure.
The report also observe that convergence has already happened in practice. Services such as online streaming, digital payments and telemedicine combine functions that cut across old sectoral boundaries, yet are still policed by laws drafted for an earlier era.
To guide reform, the report introduces a RACE framework — Recognise, Adopt, Catalyse and Encourage.
It calls on policymakers first to recognise convergence formally and revive the long-pending Convergence Communications Bill, 2001, which lapsed in 2004. Next, the state must adopt convergence internally by reorganising ministries, either through two verticals (carriage and content) or a single Ministry of Digital Ecosystem.
The third step is to catalyse convergence through technology-neutral policies, such as uniform spectrum authorisation and simplified licensing. Finally, the government should encourage convergence by reducing regulatory burdens and supporting start-ups and innovators.
“The government should actively encourage convergence,” the report says, adding that this must be done while “ensuring that the marketplace remains competitive and that the rights of consumers and citizens are protected.”
Overhaul digital governance in India
Among its three reform pathways, the study’s most ambitious is the creation of a single ministry overseeing all digital sectors. This would unify telecommunications, broadcasting and IT under a new law and a single statutory regulator, supported by a specialised tribunal for disputes.
A unified framework, it says, “would eliminate the confusion and potential conflicts arising from separate regulations” and “foster collaboration between content creators and carriers.”
However, the authors caution against concentrating too much power in one body and stress the need to preserve separate oversight for issues such as competition, data protection and cybersecurity.
They suggest that existing bodies like the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the forthcoming Digital Markets Unit (DMU) continue to handle conduct-related matters in coordination with sectoral regulators.
The report concedes that administrative reform “is easier said than done.” It lists six challenges: likely political and bureaucratic resistance; opposition to transferring licensing powers to independent regulators; concerns over excessive centralisation; and the complexity of transitioning existing licences and authorisations.
It also emphasises the need for coordination with state governments. “Considering the role of State governments, coordination for field enablement should be entrusted to NITI Aayog,” the authors note. They add that local governments — both rural and urban — should be involved in resolving on-ground issues such as rights-of-way and network alignment.
The report dedicates an entire chapter to global benchmarking, comparing governance frameworks across the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia, Estonia and the European Union.
It notes that public policy “emerges within the socio-cultural context and political economy” of each country, meaning there is no single model to follow. Still, certain lessons stand out.
The United States has a decentralised but coordinated approach, with multiple agencies — such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) — working together under a “light-touch” regulatory philosophy.
China, by contrast, operates a unified, security-focused system led by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), underpinned by the Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law and Personal Information Protection Law.
The United Kingdom follows a “whole-of-society” approach centred on Ofcom, which regulates communications, broadcasting and content. It coordinates with the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).
Singapore is highlighted for its converged model, in which the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) oversees telecommunications, IT and broadcasting. It is complemented by the Cybersecurity Agency of Singapore (CSA) and the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC).
This structure, the report says, has provided “regulatory predictability and stability,” enabling Singapore to become a regional digital hub.
Other examples include Malaysia’s communications regulator (MCMC) and Estonia’s digital governance architecture led by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, both cited for their clarity and coordination.
The report compares India’s rankings in international indices: 49th in the Network Readiness Index (2024), 97th in the UN E-Government Development Index, and 39th in the Global Innovation Index.
While India performs well in cybersecurity (98.5 on the IMF Global Cybersecurity Index), it lags in AI preparedness (0.5 on a 1-point scale).
The authors describe India’s policy stance as “techno-nationalism,” where the state plays a central role in infrastructure and platforms but must now strengthen its institutional capacity to govern effectively. “India’s ability to harmonise innovation with effective regulatory oversight is being tested,” they warn.
From convergence to accountability
The study stress that governance reform must go hand in hand with accountability. It proposes regular policy reviews, public consultation in law-making, and clear delineation of responsibilities between ministries and regulators.
It also recommends annual performance audits for regulatory bodies and suggests that parliamentary committees oversee digital policy implementation to maintain transparency.
“The blurring of boundaries across telecom, broadcasting and IT is both an opportunity and a challenge,” the authors said. “The time is ripe to re-imagine institutions and instruments for a coherent digital future.”
