Deregulation at what cost?

Yadul Krishna is a policy economist and a legal fellow at Governance Innovation Labs. As the Parliamentary Secretary to a Rajya Sabha MP, he drafted "The Bhagat Singh National Urban Employment Guarantee Bill, 2022," successfully introduced in the 2022 Monsoon Session of Indian Parliament. He previously worked as a finance professional in an investment services company and was briefly a columnist with the British Herald. Krishna's writings on the economy and governance have appeared across the globe, with multiple translations into other languages and have been referenced in research papers and newspaper editorials. An alumnus of SRCC, he is currently pursuing law at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. He tweets @Yadul_Krishna LESS ... MORE
The introduction of the Deregulation Commission, staffed by technocrats and policy consultants with little to no mandate for public consultation, echoes a problematic shift in governance—one that privileges executive discretion over democratic process.
On April 25, 2025, the Union Government announced the formation of a Deregulation Commission under the broader framework of the Jan Vishwas 2.0 initiative. This body is tasked with identifying and eliminating redundant or outdated compliance obligations in sectors including energy, telecom, logistics, and manufacturing. The aim, the government claims, is to streamline administrative processes, reduce friction for businesses, and invigorate economic growth by eliminating the burdens of regulatory red tape. At first glance, the move appears to carry the promise of economic efficiency. However, its long-term implications raise important questions about the role of the state, the future of federalism, and the protection of public interest in India's developmental trajectory.
The Rhetoric of Reform and the Reality of Deregulation
The stated rationale behind the Deregulation Commission is not unfamiliar. Cumbersome regulations, time-consuming permits, and overlapping jurisdictions have long been cited as deterrents to enterprise, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. In its final 2020 edition, the World Bank's Doing Business report placed India at 63rd among 190 economies, identifying weaknesses in areas such as contract enforcement and dealing with construction permits. However, the report was later scrapped by the Bank itself due to data irregularities and political interference, revealing the perils of relying on efficiency indices without interrogating their underlying assumptions.
While regulatory reform is indeed necessary, deregulation cannot be synonymous with indiscriminate dismantling. The existing compliance framework, though flawed, serves vital public functions: it regulates emissions, enforces minimum wages, protects workplace safety, ensures transparency in financial transactions, and governs public procurement. If these checks are weakened in the name of agility, the result will not be reform but a weakening of the state's protective capacity.
Environmental concerns are particularly germane. Since the 2020 draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, successive governments have attempted to dilute environmental safeguards in the name of 'ease of doing business.' The Deregulation Commission risks accelerating this trend by bypassing established procedures for public consultation and environmental scrutiny, effectively excluding communities most affected by extractive development—Adivasi populations, agrarian villages, and forest-dependent households.
Centralisation and the Federal Imbalance
One of the less discussed yet crucial dimensions of the deregulation project is its centralising tendency. The Commission operates as a central body, without any constitutional mandate to consult states or engage sub-national governments in its agenda-setting. This is troubling in a federal polity like India, where states have historically tailored compliance frameworks to their own socio-economic contexts. Kerala's robust environmental due diligence practices or Tamil Nadu's historically active labour welfare boards cannot be collapsed into a one-size-fits-all model that privileges uniformity over responsiveness.
The Union's expanding executive footprint in economic governance—whether through centrally framed labour codes, direct benefit transfer systems with limited state discretion, or now, deregulation templates—has effectively diluted the constitutional balance envisioned in the Seventh Schedule. Without formal mechanisms for intergovernmental consultation, the Commission could reduce states to administrative extensions rather than co-equal partners in economic reform.
Disproportionate Gains, Uneven Burdens
The promise of deregulation rests on the hope that reduced compliance burdens will attract greater investment, stimulate job creation, and improve India's global competitiveness. Yet empirical evidence for such trickle-down benefits remains sparse. A 2023 Reserve Bank of India bulletin noted that while India had seen an uptick in FDI inflows, employment elasticity in the organised sector remained weak. CMIE's data from March 2024 showed that over 400 million Indians continue to work in the informal sector, with scant access to social protection .
What this indicates is that deregulation, in practice, often benefits capital more than labour. In the last five years, corporate tax collections have declined even as incentives have multiplied. While the 2023-24 Union Budget offered ₹1.09 lakh crore in revenue foregone through corporate exemptions , key welfare schemes like MGNREGA saw allocations slashed from ₹73,000 crore in FY22 to ₹60,000 crore in FY23 . PM Awas Yojana (Urban), despite a growing housing deficit, was capped at ₹25,103 crore in the same year . These trends reflect a narrowing fiscal imagination—one that underwrites corporate certainty while shrinking the public provisioning net for the majority.
Moreover, labour law 'reforms' introduced since 2020 have increasingly tilted the balance of power away from workers. The Industrial Relations Code allows for retrenchment of up to 300 workers without state permission, effectively legalising precarious employment. In such a policy environment, further deregulation without parallel institutional strengthening could entrench inequalities rather than mitigate them.
Reform That Deepens Democracy
India does need regulatory reform. Many of its laws date back to colonial times or reflect outdated economic models. But the process of reform must itself be democratic, consultative, and transparent. The Deregulation Commission, as currently constituted, is neither accountable to Parliament nor required to engage with civil society, labour unions, consumer rights bodies, or ecological experts. This absence of participatory architecture undermines the legitimacy of its mandate.
What is required is not the wholesale dismantling of the state's regulatory role, but a reimagining of it. A democratic reform process would begin by auditing existing compliance burdens, disaggregated by sector and region. It would then involve state governments and key stakeholder groups in shaping sector-specific reforms that balance growth with sustainability and inclusion. Reform, in other words, must be dialogic, not technocratic.
India is at a moment when the language of governance is being rewritten—away from participation and towards efficiency, from social protection towards deregulation, and from federalism towards executive centralism. While these shifts may deliver short-term gains on paper, they risk undermining the constitutional ethos that frames economic policy not just as a function of growth but as a vehicle for justice and equity.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

40 minutes ago

• Time of India

‘No place for anti-people ideology': Samajwadi Party expels MLAs who cross-voted in Rajya Sabha polls; rebels had backed BJP candidate

LUCKNOW: Samajwadi Party on Monday expelled three MLAs who cast their votes in support of the BJP candidate in the Rajya Sabha elections. The party removed Abhay Singh from Gosaiganj, Rakesh Pratap Singh from Gauriganj, and Manoj Pandey from Unchahar constituencies for their actions against party principles and supporting policies deemed detrimental to various sections of society. "Samajwadi Party in public interest expels the following MLAs from the party due to their communal divisive negativity and supporting anti-farmer, women, youth, business, working professionals and 'anti-PDA' ideology, as opposed to the politics of socialist harmonious positive ideology: 1. MLA Gosaiganj Mr. Abhay Singh 2. MLA Gauriganj Mr. Rakesh Pratap Singh 3. MLA Unchahar Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey The grace period given to these people for change of heart has now been completed, the remaining time period is remaining due to good conduct. In future also there will be no place in the party for 'anti-people' people and activities contrary to the basic ideology of the party will always be considered unforgivable. Wherever you live, be trustworthy," Samajwadi Party said in an official statement on X. Party sources indicate potential expulsion actions against additional rebel MLAs in the future. According to Samajwadi Party sources, seven MLAs, including Chief Whip Manoj Pandey, disrupted party unity by backing the BJP's candidate during the Rajya Sabha elections. This action has caused significant displeasure to party president Akhilesh Yadav . Post the Lok Sabha elections conclusion last year, Yadav began proceedings to terminate the membership of these seven MLAs. Following the Samajwadi Party's success in securing 37 seats in Uttar Pradesh during the Lok Sabha elections, seven MLAs sought meetings with SP leader Akhilesh Yadav to discuss party re-entry. However, Akhilesh Yadav refused to entertain their requests for meetings or readmission.

Hans India

a day ago

• Hans India

Kamal has stirred a hornet's nest

The language row that has resurfaced in South India is indeed an unfortunate development. It is a common phenomenon that all political parties indulge in and instigate voters' temperament during election time to derive political mileage. Generally political exploitation of voters is taken for granted on issues like regionalism, language and religion. The people of Tamil Nadu are in the forefront of using such issues. Tamil leaders have raked up the language controversy a few months prior to the Legislative Assembly elections, scheduled for next year. Kamal Haasan has blatantly issued a statement contending that Tamil is the mother of all Dravidian languages and Kannada was born out of it. Chief Minister MK Stalin is bound to use the language controversy generated by Kamal Haasan for political gains. Kamal's statement has led to the boycott of screening his film "Thug Life" in Karnataka, which was eventually set right by the courts. The political party floated by Kamal Haasan has flunked miserably, while for political convenience the DMK party has befriended him and rewarded with a ticket to the Rajya Sabha. One should not forget that DMK engineered anti-Hindi agitation to ride to power in 1967. Quite ironically, now the DMK leaders are maintaining stoic silence on "Thug Life". The language blockade between Tamil and Kannada is a new twist to the already existing Kaveri water dispute and other border issues. People need to be vigilant against those creating controversies that are propped up by political parties. Kamal Haasan, who is responsible for the language controversy, must apologise to Kannadigas and create a friendly atmosphere among different language speaking people in the south. BH Indu Sekhar, Hyderabad

Hindustan Times

a day ago

• Hindustan Times

CM Saini visits Vij , asks after his health

Haryana chief minister Nayab Singh Saini on Saturday visited the residence of energy minister Anil Vij in Ambala Cantonment, to inquire about his health and wished him a speedy recovery. Haryana chief minister Nayab Singh Saini during his vistit to energy minister Anil Vij's residence in Ambala on Saturday. (Sourced) Vij, 71, has been advised rest by doctors due to a fracture in his left foot. Earlier, upon Saini's visit, he was welcomed by Vij's brothers Rajinder Vij and Kapil Vij, uncle Wing Commander (retired) SD Vij, other family members as well as a large number of BJP workers. Saini spent nearly 45 minutes at the minister's residence, discussing his injury and other issues, while also personally meeting Vij's nephews Gaurav Vij and Shubham Vij, sources said. Earlier in the day, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subhash Barala also paid a visit to Vij's residence at Shastri Colony along NH-44. Vij, a seventh-time MLA, sustained the injury about a month ago, but despite that he continued to oversee developmental work in his constituency and chaired departmental meetings at the Chandigarh Secretariat and other locations. Even during the period, he spent seven continuous hours inspecting flood preparedness in Ambala Cantonment on June 12, issuing directives to officials from district administration, municipality, cantonment board, irrigation department, railways, highways and others. Although he took medication as per medical advice, the increasing pain prompted an X-ray on Friday, which revealed a fracture in the toe, following which doctors advised him to rest for a few days, a statement from the minister's office read. The chief minister's unscheduled visit while returning to Chandigarh from Yoga Day celebrations at Kurukshetra, gathers significance given the past sour relations between the two leaders. This was Saini's first personal meeting with Vij at Ambala, since he was served a party show-cause notice in February, for his utterances targeting the chief minister as well as against state unit chief Mohan Lal Badoli.