Chandigarh, September 22
The dissolution of the 37-year-old Digital Communications Commission (DCC), formerly known as the Telecom Commission, has removed what was described as the only in-house Finance check on spectrum pricing. It has also left India without a formal institutional forum for coordination among regulators overseeing telecommunications, data protection, cybersecurity, space and aviation, according to KBS Sidhu, retired Special Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab.
On September 21, the same day the Centre’s resolution dissolving the Commission was published in the Gazette of India, Sidhu wrote to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan, requesting that a Committee of Secretaries examine, within approximately 90 days, the institutional arrangements that should replace the Commission. He said he was making the proposal as a private citizen and was not aligned with any political party.
The Union Cabinet approved the dissolution on September 16, while the formal resolution is dated September 19. The body was established in April 1989 as the Telecom Commission and renamed the Digital Communications Commission in 2018.
According to Sidhu, the Commission had become increasingly ineffective in recent years. Two of its three full-time Member positions were vacant, while the Member (Finance) was scheduled to retire in February 2027.
The Commission’s last decision, taken on September 3, approved the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recommendations concerning satellite spectrum for operators including Starlink, Eutelsat OneWeb and Jio. Following the dissolution, final decisions will now rest with the Telecom Secretary, subject to the concerned Minister and the Union Cabinet.
“The Commission had been on a ventilator for years, and nobody will mourn it,” Sidhu said. He, however, raised concerns over the loss of the Finance Member’s scrutiny of spectrum pricing, arguing that spectrum represents one of the Union Government’s significant sources of non-tax revenue and that its pricing should have Finance concurrence on record.
Call for Greater Coordination Among Regulators
Sidhu also highlighted what he described as a longstanding institutional gap. He noted that the Commission’s part-time members were drawn from NITI Aayog and the Departments of Economic Affairs, Electronics and Information Technology, and Industry.
According to him, key institutions dealing with Home Affairs, Defence, Space, Civil Aviation, Shipping and national security did not have representation.
He pointed out that a satellite broadband operator may today have to deal with the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), IN-SPACe, TRAI and security agencies, while also complying with data localisation, lawful interception and data protection requirements. However, these authorities do not have a common institutional forum for regular consultation.
watch……Census 2027: Punjab Focuses on Complete, Accurate and Timely Population Enumeration
Five Recommendations Proposed
In his letter, Sidhu proposed five terms of reference for the proposed Committee of Secretaries:
- Establish a mechanism for Finance concurrence on spectrum pricing.
- Create a standing council of communications and digital regulators, bringing together TRAI, the Data Protection Board, CERT-In, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and IN-SPACe. The DGCA, DG Shipping and the Coast Guard could join when spectrum-related matters involve safety.
- Conduct periodic audits of spectrum held by government users, including the Defence establishment.
- Publish policy directions issued by Ministries to regulators, along with the reasons for issuing such directions.
- Create a timetable for filling regulatory positions before vacancies arise.
Sidhu also noted that the Data Protection Board, whose selection committee is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, still had no Chairperson or Members as of August 2026.
Against the Idea of a Single Super-Regulator
Sidhu cautioned against creating a single overarching regulator for the digital sector.
Quoting the Roman poet Juvenal’s question about “who will guard the guardians,” he argued that creating a super-regulator would simply shift the question of regulatory oversight to another level. Instead, he called for regulators to have mechanisms to monitor and consult one another under law, while Ministries should remain accountable to Parliament for directions issued to regulatory bodies.
