2. O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) is a non-profit global university established by the Haryana Private Universities (Second
Amendment) Act, 2009. JGU was established as a philanthropic initiative of Mr. Naveen Jindal, the Founding Chancellor in the
memory of his father Mr. O.P. Jindal. The University Grants Commission has accorded its recognition to O.P. Jindal Global
University. The vision of JGU is to promote global courses, global programmes, global curriculum, global research, global
collaborations, and global interactions through global faculty. JGU is situated on a 80-acre state-of-the-art residential campus in
the National Capital Region of Delhi. JGU is one of the few universities in Asia that maintain a 1:15 faculty-student ratio and
appoint faculty members from different parts of the world with outstanding academic qualifications and experience. JGU has so
far established five schools: Jindal Global Law School, Jindal Global Business School, Jindal School of International Affairs,
JindalSchoolofGovernmentandPublicPolicyandJindalSchoolofLiberalArts&Humanities.www.jgu.edu.in
In 2009, JGU established India's first global law school, namely, Jindal Global Law School (JGLS). JGLS is recognised by the
Bar Council of India and offers a three-year LL.B. programme, five-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) and B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
programmes and a one-year LL.M. programme. JGLS has research interests in a variety of key policy areas, including: Global
Corporate and Financial Law and Policy; Women, Law, and Social Change; Penology, Criminal Justice and Police
Studies; Human Rights Studies; International Trade and Economic Laws; Global Governance and Policy; Health Law,
Ethics, and Technology; Intellectual Property Rights Studies; Public Law and Jurisprudence; Environment and Climate
Change Studies; South Asian Legal Studies; International Legal Studies; Psychology and Victimology Studies and Clinical
Legal Programmes. JGLS has established international collaborations with law schools around the world, including
Harvard,Yale,Columbia,Michigan,Cornell,UCBerkeley,UCDavis,Arizona,Oxford,CambridgeandIndiana.JGLShasalso
signed MoU with a number of reputed law firms in India and abroad, including White & Case, Amarchand & Mangaldas &
Suresh A. Shroff & Co., AZB & Partners, FoxMandal Little, Luthra and Luthra Law offices, Khaitan & Co. and Nishith Desai
Associates.
www.jgls.edu.in
Jindal Global Business School (JGBS) offers an MBA programme and an integrated BBA-MBA
programme. The vision of JGBS is to impart global business education to uniquely equip students,
managers and professionals with the necessary knowledge, acumen and skills so that they can effectively
tackle challenges faced by transnational business and industry. JGBS offers a multi-disciplinary global
business education to foster academic excellence, industry partnerships and global collaborations. JGBS
faculty is engaged in research on current issues including: Applied Finance, Business Policy, Decision
Support Systems, Consumer Behavior, Globalization, Leadership and Change, Quantitative Methods,
Information Systems, and Supply Chain & Logistics Management. JGBS has established international
collaborations with several leading international schools including the Naveen Jindal School of
Management, University of Texas at Dallas, USA, Kelley School of Business, Indiana, USA, European
BusinessSchool,GermanyandUniversityofNewBrunswick,Fredericton,Canada.
www.jgbs.edu.in
www.jsia.edu.in
Jindal School of International Affairs (JSIA) India's first Global Policy school is enhancing Indian and international
capacities to analyse and solve world problems. It intends to strengthen India's intellectual basein international relations
and affiliated social science disciplines that have hitherto been largely neglectedby Indian academic institutions. JSIA
offers a Master of Arts in Diplomacy, Law and Business [M.A.(DLB)]. The programme is the first of its kind in Asia,
drawing upon the resources of global faculty in Jindal Global Law School, Jindal Global Business School, as well as the
Jindal School of International Affairs to create a unique interdisciplinary pedagogy. The M.A. (DLB) is delivered on week
days to residential students and on weekends for working professionals, including diplomats, based in the National
Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi. JSIA has also launched a three-year B.A (Hons.) in Global Affairs. JSIA has established
international collaborations with the United Nations University in Tokyo and the School of Public and Environmental
Affairs (SPEA) of Indiana University. JSIA hosts India's first Taiwan Education Centre, which has been established by
National Tsing Hua University of Taiwan with the backing of the Ministry of Education, Government of Taiwan. JSIA
publishes the Jindal Journal of International Affairs (JJIA), a critically acclaimed bi-annual academic journal featuring
writingsofIndianandinternationalscholarsandpractitionersoncontemporaryworldaffairs.
Jindal School of Government and Public Policy (JSGP) offers India's first Master's Programme in Public Policy (MPP).
MPP is inter-disciplinary and draws upon multiple disciplines. It is designed to equip students with capacity to grasp
contemporary economic, political and social challenges, coherently and comprehensively and to find solutions to
persistent problems. Our public policy graduates have mastery over a range of tools and techniques essential for evidence-
based policy-making. They are well-versed in monitoring and evaluation methods. They are trained to understand diverse
contexts and complexity. They can design policies which are implementable and deliver desired results. They will be an
asset to development and policy-related institutions, both within government and in civil society. Think-tanks, policy
research institutions, consulting companies, corporate social responsibility initiatives, international organisations and
the media must value the unique combination of skills, leadership, imagination, and ethics which JSGP graduates possess.
JSGP has an outstanding faculty to equip its students to pursue successful and adventurous careers in many spheres of
public life. JSGP has international collaborations befitting a global programme of high quality. JSGP is a member of a
select group of public policy schools (including Harvard University, Sciences Po, Oxford University, Central European
University, and many others) for participating in the Open Society Foundation's Rights and Governance Internship
Programme. JSGP has a dedicated Placement and Career Development Cell which helps its graduates to pursue careers
bestsuitedtotheirskillsandaptitude.
www.jsgp.edu.in
The Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities (JSLH) began its first academic session in 1 August 2014. It offers an
interdisciplinary under-graduate degree programme leading to the award of B.A. (Hons.). An education in the liberal arts
and humanities programme at Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities (JSLH) in collaboration with Rollins College,
Florida, is the ideal preparation for an intellect in action. JSLH offers a space for the expansion of young minds in a
polyvalent education that mixes the classical and the contemporary in a new framework – the first of its kind in India. Our
aim is to break down disciplinary boundaries and redefine what it means to study arts and humanities in an international
context. At JSLH, our distinguished faculty aims to create world-class thinkers who are simultaneously innovators. We
train students for intellectual mastery, democratic participation, self-expression and advanced life-long learning. Our
curriculumhasbeencarefullycraftedandhasaglobalorientation.Withinthisglobalframework,theB.A.(Hons.)includes
an exciting opportunity to solidify Jindal's liberal arts and humanities programme through an extended period of study at
Rollins College, Florida, USA, leading to the award of another undergraduate degree from the USA. JSLH seeks to become
oneoftheplacesthatwill producethenextgenerationofleaderstoconfrontouroverarchingproblems. www.jslh.edu.in
India's First Transnational Humanities School
Jindal School of
Liberal Arts & Humanities

3. The effort of the O.P. Jindal Global University
to organize the Seminar and Panel Discussion
on “Net Neutrality and The Future of Digital
India” and publishing the proceedings of the
eventisanimportantinitiative.
In light of the contemporary challenges faced,
both in terms of governance, as well as the lack
of certainty in interpretation and enforcement
of laws and policies related to internet, the
Indian Government is on a path to develop
regulations on important internet related
issues like net neutrality and bring about a
renaissance in this domain. The Digital India
initiative is one such initiative which is indicative of the Indian
Government's vision for the future. Accordingly, the objective of this
Seminar and Panel Discussion is to address the existing issues and
decrypt what the future holds for net neutrality and other internet related
issuesinIndia.
At the heart of the net neutrality debate, lies the question of exploring the
neutrality of internet as a public service for common good. Unfortunately,
the existing debates on net neutrality in India have thrown more heat
than light. Indeed, there is a need to better understand how private and
public institutions the can meaningfully contribute and positively
influence governance of India's digital future. Accordingly, the seminar
and panel discussion is structured in a manner so that we can have a more
informed deliberation on whether and how 'Over the Top' (OTT) services
and applications should be governed so as to improve well-being of all
Indians.AllthisaugurswellforJGU'soverallvisionfornationbuilding.
I appreciate the contribution of the scholars, internet activists, engineers,
economists, policy makers and lawyers who have contributed to this
timely seminar & panel discussion. I hope that this publication provides
perspectives to people who are engaged in practice, research and policy
workrelatingtointernetandiswidelydisseminated.
i
Prof. (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar
Vice Chancellor
O.P. Jindal Global University and
Dean, Jindal Global Law School
Foreword

5. DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this document are those of the panelists and
do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of O.P Jindal
Global University. The document is a summary of the discussions
that took place between the panelists during the various sessions of
thisseminarandthesupportingpresentationsprovidedbythem.

7. In the wake of debates related to net neutrality and other internet related
issues in India, the O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) organised a
Seminar & Panel Discussion on – “Net Neutrality and the Future of
th
Digital India” on 8 of May 2015. We thank and appreciate the support
extended by various Centers of the Jindal Global Law School, namely,
Center for Post Graduate Legal Studies, Center for International Trade
and Economic Laws, and Center for Global Corporate and Financial Law
andPolicytomakethisseminarasuccess.
No one could be more supportive than our honorable Vice Chancellor
Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar and Registrar, Prof (Dr.) Y.S.R.Murthy for
their continuous guidance and motivation. The support extended by their
officesmadesurethataneventofthiscomplexityisorganizedseamlessly.
The support extended by our distinguished faculty members in making
this conference a success is commendable. We extend our special thanks
to Prof. Stephen Marks, Prof. R. Sudarshan, Prof. Shiv Visvanathan, Prof.
Parkash Chander, Prof. Dabiru Sridhar Patnaik, Prof. James
Nedumpara, Prof. Indranath Gupta, Prof. Arjya Majumdar, Prof
Weatherly Schwab and Prof. Anuranjan Sethi. This event would not have
been possible without the toil and intensity put in by all of the above
mentioned.
The drafting of this report was not possible without the laborious task
carried out by our students who served as rapporteurs during the
conference. We thank and appreciate the hard work of our students Miss
Ashu Lamba, Mr Pratik Dash Kumar, Miss Nehmat Kaur our intern Ms.
DivyaPatpatiaandourresearchassociateMr.SauravSanyal.
Finally, this acknowledgment would be incomplete without appreciating
the tireless and unwavering commitment of our administrative staff, in
particular, Col(Retd)Ranjit Handa, Miss Kakul Rizvi, Mr. Vikas
Chandok, Mr. Bivas Sen Gupta, Mr. Manoj Chabra, Mr. Anil Kumar and
Mr.RajeevShukla.
Ÿ
AssistantProfessor,JindalGlobalLawSchool
AssistantDirector,CenterforInternationalTradeandEconomicLaws
Ÿ
AssistantProfessor,JindalGlobalLawSchool
AssistantDirector,CenterforGlobalCorporateandFinancialLawandPolicy
Ÿ
ResearchAssociate,
OfficeoftheViceChancellor
O.P.JindalGlobalUniversity
Avirup Bose
Vikas Kathuria
Prateek Pathak
Acknowledgments
v

8. Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Executive Summary 3
Inaugural Session 8-11
Session I India'sinternet:Voicesforits 12-16
ProtectionandPromotion
Session II TechnologyandEconomicsof 17-20
NetNeutrality:Accessibility,
CompetitionandInnovation
Session III LawsandRegulationson 21-24
NetNeutrality:Creatinga
ConduciveinternetEco-System
DistinguishedValedictory Address 25-28
Conclusion 29-31
Annexure 32
Annexure–I Invitationto“NetNeutralityand 33-34
theFutureofDigitalIndia”
Annexure –II RecentArticlesonNetNeutrality 34-38
andinternetbyJGLSProfessors
Annexure –III JGUPublications 39-41
Annexure –IV Invitationtothe launchofIndia’sFirst 42-46
‘DoItYourself’CompanyLaw
ResearchProject
Annexure –V Previousconferenceson 47-49
InformationTechnology
vi

9. INTRODUCTION
The Indian net neutrality debate has seen some of the most acrimonious
and passionate public involvement in Government policy making in
recent Indian history. On the last count, some 4 million telephonic calls
have been made and 1 million emails have been written, arguing for and
againstthedebate.
In essence the debate started when Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India (TRAI) released a consultation paper on the growth of over-the-top
(OTT)players,likeWhatsApporSkypeandproposedtheexplorationofa
suitable regulatory framework for such apps. The idea of regulating OTT
apps emerge from the fact that Indian telecom companies have
complained that these apps are riding on their networks for free and
cannibalizing their business. Loss of revenue for the telecom companies
would prevent them from investing in building the much-required
telecom infrastructure in India, including competitively bidding for
valuable spectrum. OTT players, on the other hand, insisted that their
services were driving a lot more traffic to the telecoms' network and
makingsuchnetworkmorevaluableandattractivetousers.
ThedebategotfurtheraugmentedbytheproposalofAirtelandFacebook
to launch their zero-rated platforms of 'Airtel Zero' and 'Internet.org',
respectively – both of which allowed consumers to access a pre-selected
boutique of online services/websites, offered for free to subscribers of a
particular telecom company (usually these would be the services which
thecompanyhadtied-upwith).
Open internet activists have claimed that such zero-rated platforms are a
form of 'internet racism' where some online services/websites would
have prioritized access on the internet over others. They claim that such
discriminating access will have vast implications – especially for
startups, many of whom are dependent on the internet as a medium of
communication and access to their customers. A neutral net would be a
guarantee of a level playing field for such edge entrepreneurs and allow
them to effectively compete against players with entrenched market
presence.
Zero-rating enthusiasts, on the other hand, state that in a country like
India, where many do not even have access to data or mobile internet
(there are more than a billion Indians who are without any internet
connection), given that such connection is expensive, zero ratings can
provide telecom/internet companies with an innovative price
discrimination model based on the affordability of the user, allowing the
Indianinternetindustrytoincludethepoor.
1

10. In response to the debate the Indian Department of Telecommunications
(DOT) set up a six member panel to look into the issue and the panel has
submitted its report to the Communications and IT minister. The report
is expected to be made public soon. TRAI is also reviewing the public
comments received in response to its consultation paper and is expected
to provide its recommendations to the Government. Even the
Competition Commission of India, is examining concerns of alleged anti-
competitive practices arising from the launch of free data access plans by
dominanttelecomoperators.
Given the acrimony of the debate and appreciating how difficult it is to
frame policies amidst such noise, the O.P. Jindal Global University
organized a day-long seminar and panel discussion on May 8th 2015 on
'Net Neutrality and the Future of Digital India'. This event aimed to
promote a discussion and debate on the substantial legal, regulatory and
policy issues surrounding the ongoing debate on net neutrality in India.
The seminar provided a platform to various stakeholders for initiating a
multi-stakeholder, inter-disciplinary discussion among experts to
promoteideasforbetteringgovernanceofIndia'sdigitalfuture.
This research report, which compiles all the key opinions shared and
presentations made at the conference, is a humble effort to promote a
better understanding of various concepts/issues related to the Indian net
neutralitydebate.
Ÿ Avirup Bose
Ÿ Vikas Kathuria
Ÿ Prateek Pathak
AssistantProfessor,JindalGlobalLawSchool
AssistantDirector,CenterforInternationalTradeandEconomicLaws
AssistantProfessor,JindalGlobalLawSchool
AssistantDirector,CenterforGlobalCorporateandFinancialLawandPolicy
ResearchAssociate,
OfficeoftheViceChancellor,
O.P.JindalGlobalUniversity
2

11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

12. The seminar and panel discussion on 'Net Neutrality and the Future of
Digital India' was successfully organized by the O.P. Jindal Global
University on 8th May, 2015. The following paragraphs summarize the
viewsexpressedandthekeyrecommendationsmadebythedistinguished
speakerswhogracedtheday-longprogram.
In the inaugural session, Dr. Shashi Tharoor, stressed that net
neutrality is an issue of urgent public importance in the Indian political
sphere. He felt that the issue is not settled as the debate is complex and
existing moral outrage as well as the intellectual extremism over it is
misplaced. He emphasized the need for internet to be free and yet felt the
need to understand the challenges of developing India's telecom
infrastructure. Dr. Tharoor concluded his presidential address, by stating
that in his opinion, in a democracy the net neutrality debate would end up
only in one way – a user must pay for data packet and not for choice of
applications/services within the packet. Dr. Govind, in his keynote
address emphasized how the net-neutrality debate is critical for
realization of 'Digital India' and for bridging India's existing digital
divide. Based on the experiences of USA's Federal Communication
Commission (FCC), in dealing with net-neutrality issues, Dr. Govind
suggested that Indian network management practices must support
reasonable network management, ban paid prioritization without
blocking lawful content. In his special address, Prof. Shiv
Vishwanathan, stressed the need to look at the net-neutrality debate in
abordercontext ofproblems emerging due toco-existence oforal,written
and digital traditions of Indian democracy and how it has led to a crisis in
narrative and a crisis in democracy. In his opinion, understanding
internet as 'digital commons' will help Indian policy makers adjudicate
between the interest of different stakeholders and in developing credible
policiesforsafeguardingtherightsoffuturegenerations.
The first thematic session, was chaired by Prof. Professor Stephen P.
Marks and was entitled 'India's Internet: Voices for its Protection and
Promotion'. During the session, Dr. Anja Kovaces cautioned the
audience of the fear of killing the internet as a cheap, easy and convenient
means of mass communication, if the economic arguments of telcos are
given unnecessary weightage while developing the network neutrality
regulations. She articulated the need to evaluate the performance of
India's telco's in investing in creating digital infrastructures in rural
areas, before the advent of OTT players and challenged that the argument
made by teleco's of revenue losses, should be evaluated for their evidence.
Dr. Geeta Gouri analyzed the issue of net-neutrality through the lens of
4

13. competition law and regulatory economics. She emphasized that in a
country with love for regulatory and bureaucratic control and a deep
suspicion for markets, a solution to the net-neutrality debate will require
an uncomfortable blending between dynamic economics and static laws.
Mr. Jiten Jain, an ethical hacker, informed the audience that the net-
neutrality debate, if settled incorrectly, can neutralize the emancipatory
nature of the internet. He urged the telecom companies to innovate and
improve their quality of services rather than lobby for revenue sharing
models which will make the consumers pay for their incompetence. Dr.
Mahesh Uppal informed the audience that the apparent consensus on
the net-neutrality debate is misleading as it means different things to the
stakeholders who are on the same side of the debate. In his presentation,
Dr. Uppal differentiated the ISP market in India and the US, stressing
how the Indian market is price sensitive and less quality conscious,
resulting in different market incentives for the Indian players as
compared to their US counterparts. Prof. Avirup Bose suggested that
in order to enhance digital inclusion within India's internet eco-system, a
'ChotaRecharge'modelfortheinternetisnecessary,whereeveryinternet
user will pay for a low cost data pack wherein he gets access to a limited
list of applications. Prof. Bose suggested that those who demonize zero
rating plans as 'internet racism' fail to consider their potential to become
anarrativeofinclusiveinternetgrowth.
The second thematic session was entitled 'Technology and Economics of
Net Neutrality: Accessibility, Competition and Innovation' and was
chaired by Prof. Parkash Chander. In this session Dr. Anindya
Chaudhuri explained that the debate on net-neutrality exists because of
a lack of understanding on the rationale behind the design of the internet.
He explained that non-neutrality was built into the heart of the internet
system and urged people to understand the internet in terms of chewing
and scheduling theory, which in his opinion, can provide useful insights
into the rationale of internet's network design. Mr. Nandan Kamath
stressed the need to look at the internet through the perspective of
innovation theory. He also stressed on the importance to understand the
nature of path-dependence in network economics, where initial lock-ins,
in the form of websites like 'Internet.Org' can lock in Indian users and
effectively determine the future of internet in India. Dr. Naveneet
Sharma explained, how in his opinion, discrimination is the essence of
governance in India and neutrality or competitive neutrality is the
hallmark of the competition debate. He predicted that a net neutrality
policy which promoted disruptive technologies will be the key to India's
5

14. digital future. Prof. Vikas Kathuria explained how consumers will
benefit if India's does not adopt a strict net-neutrality principle and
advocated for a balanced approach where only those who can pay should
be charged. He stressed that ISPs and OTTs have a complementary
positioninthemarketandneedeachotherfortheirsurvival.
The third session was chaired by Professor R. Sudarshan and was
entitled 'Laws and Regulations on Net Neutrality: Creating a Conducive
Internet Eco-system'. Mr. Abhishek Malhotra discussed if existing
laws are sufficient to address the challenge of net-neutrality. He felt that
the law of torts and law of contracts can provide an important starting
pointtostudythenatureofdiscriminationassociatedwithnet-neutrality.
As per Ms. Jyoti Parwar, considering the fact that internet penetration
in India is low, there are many emerging issues which need consideration
(e.g., data privacy, cyber-security) contemporaneously with the issue of
net-neutrality. Mr. Yogesh Singh emphasized that the objective of any
net-neutralityregulationforIndia'sbetterdigitalfuture,mustprovidefor
internet access to amateur internet users and digital have-nots.
According to him, any proposed model for net-neutrality regulation must
consider the key principles of non-discrimination and reasonable
network management. Prof. Indranath Gupta informed the audience
about the rise of user generated content and how it has changed the shape
of the net-neutrality debate. He emphasized that, in today's internet
markets, providing access is much more critical, as users have now
become producers as well as consumers of information. Mr. Rajan S
Mathews emphasized the need to understand net-neutrality and
develop subsequent regulations from a country specific perspective,
rather than imitating similar developments in advanced nations. He
asked the audience to situate the net-neutrality debate in the broader
context of internet governance. If the Government stands by its
commitment for a multilateral governance model for internet
governance,thenwecannotexpecttheinternettobetrulyneutral.
The conference concluded with the 'Distinguished Valedictory Address'
given by Dr. Rahul Khullar, former Chairman of the Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Dr. Khullar began with the
clarification that, at no point of time, when TRAI issued the consultation
paper, was it the intention of the regulatory agency to start policing the
internet. He emphasized the need to facilitate evidence –based decision
making on internet policies and stressed that the solution to the debate
must be achieved from India's public policy angle. He articulated certain
unexceptional principles that need to be included within any net-
6

15. neutrality regulation – (a) no blocking, (b) transparency and (c) no
throttling and said that on these three principles, there simply cannot be
any debate. Finally, he emphasized that the regulator has to agree on
certain principles which should stand the test of time and which should
be applicable for making consistent policy decisions. He further stated
thatsuchprinciplesneedtobedeliberatedbyallstakeholders.
7

16. INAUGURAL SESSION
9:30 am – 10:45 am

17. In his Presidential address,
stressed that net neutrality is an
issue of urgent public importance in the
Indian political sphere with both
Government and opposition vouching their
commitment for it. But he still felt that the
issue is not settled as the debate is complex
and existing moral outrage as well as
intellectualextremismoveritismisplaced.
He went on to articulate the viewpoints of
both sides of debate. The advocates of the net
neutrality view internet as a free, open and a readily available resource
wherein access to different online services should not be priced
differently as espoused by Airtel Zero Plan. Dr. Tharoor stressed that
rather than manipulating their revenue models via revenue sharing with
OTTs, telcos should innovate, fix their revenue models and provide world
class quality services to Indian consumers. However, he felt that there is
also a need to understand the challenges faced by telcos who have already
invested heavily in infrastructure and subsequent upgrades without any
explicit revenue support from the application providers who use this
infrastructure.
He raised three important questions which TRAI and other policy
organizationsadvisingtheGovernment onnetneutralitymustconsider
1. Whether internet should follow the highway model (different toll
prices for different vehicles on same road) or the phone model (same
callchargesirrespectiveoftheendusers)?
2. Why spectrum is rationed in minuscule quantities to telcos? Is this
policyfairandsustainable?
3. How should we create a ‘level playing field’ which promotes digital
entrepreneurship, competition and innovation in Indian internet
eco-system?
He concluded his speech by stressing the need to understand technical
and practical matters in this existing debate. If the subsequent net
neutrality policy adopted by the Government still causes moral outrage, it
won't be sustained by the Parliament. In his opinion, the debate would
enduponlyinonewayinademocracy-ausermustpayforthedatapacket
itselfandnotforchoiceofapplications/serviceswithinthepacket.
Dr. Shashi
Tharoor
Dr. Shashi Tharoor
Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing
Committee on External Affairs
9

18. Dr. Govind in his keynote address
admitted that the topic of net neutrality has
gone viral in India. He gave a brief overview
of the ‘Digital India’ initiative whose vision is
to transform India into a knowledge society
by empowering Indians through an open
and accessible internet. In his view, net
neutrality (i.e. an open, accessible and non-
discriminatory internet) is critical for
realization of the ‘Digital India’ programme
as India embarks upon the challenge to
bridge its existing digital divide through mobile platforms which provide
supportforcontentinregionallanguagesaswell.
He informed the audience that the Transmission Control Protocol /
Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) architecture allows the internet to be free,
open and add value to all users. He stressed the importance of net
neutrality in creation of Facebook, Google and other existing internet
based technology giants. Based on USA's Federal Communication
Commission (FCC)’s, experience of dealing with net neutrality issues in
US, he suggested that Indian network management practices must
support reasonable network management, ban paid prioritization and
shouldnotblock/throttlelawfulcontent.
According to him, internet should be priced like electricity i.e., a user
should be charged for the amount of his internet consumption,
irrespective of the nature of the internet consumption. He feels that
selective bundling by ISPs will affect Indian internet ecosystem in the
long run. Rather than tweaking internet access; realization of an open
internet and quality broadband penetration by appropriate investment in
Network R&D will be critical for all forms of socio-economic development
inIndia.
Dr. Govind
Chief Executive Officer
National Internet Exchange of India
In his special address, Professor
Visvanathan stressed the need to look at
the problem of net neutrality in the broader
context of problems emerging due to co-
existence of the oral, written and digital
democracies. Similar to technological
problems in bio-technology and nuclear
technology, he pointed out that the real
causality of information revolution brought
about by the internet are the crises of
language, crises of narrative and crises of
democracy.
Professor Shiv Visvanathan
Vice Dean
Jindal School of Government and
Public Policy (JSGP)
10

19. Net neutrality has induced a crisis in language as the term itself means
different things to different stakeholders. With different stakeholders
espousing different interests, claims and visions for internet, it has led to
a crisis in narrative. It has also led to a crisis in democracy as it has led to
new notions of citizenship within the digital commons and supplemented
the existing customer-citizen-network paradigm with the network-
public-digitalcommonsparadigm.
He emphasized the need to contextualize this crisis in Indian context.
This requires an articulation of the need to understand the conventions of
trust and responsibility within the tacit constitutions of technology and
appreciate the role of disorderliness as an indicator of reinvention of
technology mediated democracy in the Indian context. In his opinion,
understandinginternetasdigitalcommonswillhelpIndianpolicymakers
adjudicate between interests of different stakeholders. It will also help
them in developing credible policies for safeguarding rights of future
generation by better engagement with existing notions of digital access,
digitalinfrastructureandinstitutionalinfrastructure.
11

20. SESSION I
INDIA'S INTERNET: VOICES FOR ITS
PROTECTION AND PROMOTION
11:00 am – 1:00 pm

21. Dr. Anja Kovacs started her session with a
story of the emancipatory promise of radio as
a cheap, easy and convenient medium of mass
communication. Unfortunately, regulation
killed the radio and the internet as a new
practise might meet the same fate if the
economic arguments of telcos are given
unnecessary weightage in network neutrality
regulations. According to her, arguments
made by telcos for loss in their revenues
should be evaluated for their evidence. She
inquired if slow-down in voice revenues haven’t been compensated by
increase in data revenues for most of these telcos? We must also evaluate
whether telcos actually fulfilled their regulatory obligations to invest in
creating digital infrastructures in rural areas before the advent of OTT
players? Further, there is a need for more clarity on how net neutrality
regulations will impact the access to online apps and services developed
for marginal sections of the Indian population. If we want to liberalise the
application layer of the underlying TCP/IP protocol which most of these
OTT players work with, then she opined that there is also a need to
liberalise the network and data layers within the internet protocol stack
whereinmostoftelcosandISPsoperate
Chair: Professor Stephen P. Marks, Professor, Harvard University,
USAandDistinguishedVisitingProfessor,JGLS
Dr. Anja Kovacs
Director
Internet Democracy Project, India
Dr. Geeta Gouri analysed the issue of net
neutrality through the lens of competition
economics and regulatory economics. In her
view the rise of neural networks and their
transient phase requires a better
understanding of markets developed without
bricks and mortar. In a country with love for
regulatoryandbureaucraticcontrolanddeep
suspicion of markets, this will require an
uncomfortable blending between dynamic
economicsandstaticlaws.
She stressed the need to understand the implications of terms used to
define net neutrality like 'non- discrimination of internet packets' in
practiseandconsidersomeofthefollowingquestions.
Dr. Geeta Gouri
Former Member
Competition Commission of India
13

22. 1. Would we be fine if a discrimination of internet packets is efficient
andwelfareenhancing?
2. What if reasonable network non-neutrality features are the only way
togetmorepeopleontheboard?
3. Whoshallprovidesubsidyforprovidingaccesstotheunconnected?
4. How do we deal with non-network based techniques like Search
EngineOptimizationwhichcompromisenetworkneutrality?
She questioned whether there are competition laws which will deal with
dominant players in emerging digital space and check their abuse without
basing them on outdated economics? Further, she informed the audience
that regulatory advisory bodies working on these issues must not
demonstrate expansionary tendencies and protect the interests of
consumers than those of the competing market players. Codifying net
neutrality in terms of reasonable transparency, non-discrimination and
access with appropriate incentives for innovation can be an important
startingpointinthisregard.
Mr Jiten Jain, an ethical hacker, informed
the audience that the net neutrality debate is
contesting the basic nature of the internet
and subsequent policy decisions will either
keep the internet neutral or neutralize the
emancipatory potential of the internet.
Drawing parallels from China's successful
internet business model eco-system, he
asserted that access to internet must be open
for young Indian start-ups. He urged the
telcos to innovate and improve their quality
of services (QOS) rather than lobby for revenue sharing models which will
make the consumer pay for their incompetence. He argued that telcos
must come up with pro-active disclosures on their part to quell the
suspicion that they want to enter and capture OTT market through
manipulation of net neutrality principles. He complained that TRAI is
acting in best interests of telcos and urged it to work for the long term
benefits of Indian consumers. Considering that Parliament and Indian
Government had given a standing commitment to net neutrality, he
opinedthatTRAIshould withdrawitsconsultationpaper.
Mr. Jiten Jain
Chief Executive Officer
Indian Infosec Consortium
14

23. Dr. Mahesh Uppal informed the audience
that notion of net neutrality has been over-
simplified in the Indian context and the
consensus on net neutrality is misleading as
it means different things to set of
stakeholders who are on the same side of
debate. For example, MNCs like Facebook,
Google etc., support net neutrality differently
than organizations like ‘Save the Internet’.
Additionally, many libertarians, some
minority groups and even Nobel Prize
winningeconomistsareagainstregulationstomaketheinternet'neutral'.
He stressed the difference between operation of the network player in the
the Indian and US context. He argued that ISP market in India is more
competitive and flexible. Further, he pointed out that India is a price
sensitive market which results in different market incentives to Indian
players as compared as to their US counterparts. Most importantly,
Indian telcos are heavily dependent on wireless networks as compared to
fixed line networks of their US conterparts which makes it more
vulnerable to inefficiencies in India's existing spectrum rationing
policies.
He believed that a policy on net neutrality must consider special cases and
exceptions which are essential for public policy. Further, the subsequent
regulations must be technology neutral i.e., OTTs like Watsapp must be
subjected to similar regulations as compared to Short Message Service
offeredbytelcos.
Dr. Mahesh Uppal
Director, ComFirst
Professor Avirup Bose asked the
audience to imagine that they were all
regulators from TRAI who had decided to
adjudicate the issue of net neutrality based
upon e-mail submissions made by a million
netizen. He asked them to reflect whether
their decision would be fair as they had
implicitly excluded the viewpoints of the
digital have-nots. To promote inclusion of
these digital have-nots within India’s
internet eco-system, Professor Bose
proposes a model of 'chotta recharge' similar
to the one offered by Tata Sky i.e. every
internet user will pay for a low cost data pack wherein he gets access to
Professor Avirup Bose
Assistant Professor & Assistant Director
Centre for International Trade and
Economic Laws, JGLS and
Former Expert Consultant to the
Competition Commission of India
15

24. limited list of pre-choosen applications. This will ensure that digital have-
nots like poor Indian farmers will be connected to the internet on a
limited but daily basis. He maintained that allowing telcos to calibrate
internet access prices bassed on user affordability would help to energize
the internet markets at bottom of the digital pyramid. Concurring with
‘Digital India's’ vision to make all Indian citizens as netizens, Prof Bose
proposed that Airtel Zero plan can also be considered as a model of
inclusive growth rather than one of internet racism. Although there is a
credible fear that Indian start-ups will suffer from anti –competitive
practices of dominant multinational players, Professor Bose felt that
regulaterslikeCCIcanplayanactiveroleinaddressingsuchfears.
16

25. SESSION II
TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS OF
NET NEUTRALITY: ACCESSIBILITY,
COMPETITION AND INNOVATION
2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

26. Dr. Anindya Chaudhuri felt that the
debateonnetneutralityexistsbecauseoflack
of understanding on the rationale behind the
design of the internet. According to him,
non- neutrality was built in to the heart of
TCP/IP protocol based packet switching
networks. Unlike circuit switching networks
of erstwhile telephone networks, there was
no guarantee that all the packets will be
transmitted and prioritization has always
been practised. Thus, discrimination lies at the heart of internet systems
and IEFT RFC 791 codifies this idea. Understanding the working of
internet in terms of chewing and scheduling theory can provide useful
insightsintorationaleofthisnetworkdesign.
With appropriate graphs, Dr. Chaudhari was able to illustrate that telcos
in India have outsourced their R&Ds and are only adding superficial value
to their networks. Indeed, there is need for substantive innovation in
telecom as well as policy space in India. Money raised through spectrum
allocationscanbemeaningfullyutilizedforfundingthisinnovation.
He concluded his talk by stressing on the importance of long term
innovation over short term monetary benefits for India's better digital
future. He acknowledged that the debate is quite complex and needs a
betterunderstandingofengineering,mathematicsandeconomics.
Chair: Professor Parkash Chander, Professor, Jindal School of
Government and Public Policy (JSGP)
Dr. Anindya Chaudhuri
Global Development Network
18
Mr. Nandan Kamath stressed the need to
look at the internet through the perspective
of innovation theory. He highlighted an
interesting fact about contradictory stance
taken by ISPs within law i.e., Indian ISPs
want to be 'smart' when they want to
discriminate with respect to content
provided by OTT players but want to remain
'dumb' when they are accused of infringing
copyrights due to nature of content
transmittedby the sameOTT players.He also
stressed on the importance of understanding the nature of path
dependence in network economics. As initial lock-ins will determine the
Mr. Nandan Kamath
Principal Lawyer
The Law Offices of Nandan Kamath

27. Dr. Navneet Sharma accepted that the
fact that there is no universally accepted
definition of net neutrality. But he
articulated four principles which are
essential for net neutrality- transparency, no
blocking of lawful content, no unreasonable
discriminatory practises and reasonable
networkmanagementpractises.
He felt that discrimination is the essence of
governance in India. Neutrality or
competitive neutrality is the hallmark of the
competition debate. Exploring internet as a
public good, he raised the following three questions to better deal with
issueofnetneutralityinIndiafromacompetitionlawperspective.
1. Whether loss of net neutrality should be considered as an instance of
regulatory failure and whether it will impact competition (i.e. prices,
abilityofplayerstocompete).
2. Who should be charged? What will be its impact of these pricing
mechanisms on market failure and ability of existing market players to
compete?
Dr. Navneet Sharma
Associate Professor
School of Competition Law,
Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs
19
nature of future of technology, he opined that ‘Internet.Org’ can lock in
Indian users and effectively determine the future of internet in India.
Thus, any technology regulator must consider the following two
questions–
1.Whentointerveneinthemarket?
2. How to ensure that entrenched player focusses on innovation rather
than relying on regulatory capture or lock-in effects to protect the market
shareofitsonlineservice/application?
He admitted that the issue of net neutrality is complex and expressed his
sympathy for task undertaken by India technology regulators by
comparing them to a giant who is 'blind' (i.e. without ability to
prognosticate the welfare of future netizens) but has great powers to
shape the future. He concluded his speech by predicting that the future of
India's digital economy will depend on how our net neutralitypolicies are
able to provide access to internet in India without high lock-in or
switchingcosts.

28. Professor Kathuria elaborated the
followingthreepointsinhistalk:
1. ISPs and OTTs have a complementary
position in market and need each other for
their survival. There is need to improve the
efficiency of India’s spectrum allocation and
promote digital innovation with relevant
investmentsindigitalinfrastructure.
2. Competition Law is not the right
remedy for net neutrality debate as there are
nodominantplayersinIndia'sISPmarket.
3. Consumers will benefit if India doesn’t
adopt a strict nation of net neutrality as the
ISPs can then survive by only charging OTTs
with deep pockets to raise funds for infrastructure investment and
prevent the 'waterbed effect' in the economy. Thus, only those who can
payshouldbecharged.
Professor Vikas Kathuria
Assistant Professor and
Assistant Director
Michigan-Jindal Centre for Global
Corporate and
Financial Law and Policy, JGLS
20
3. Will early entrants affect the ability of late entrants to compete? Will
companieswithdeeppocketseventuallywin?
Dr. Sharma didn't provide any explicit answers but predicted that a net
neutrality policy which promotes disruptive technologies will be the key
toIndia'sdigitalfuture.

29. SESSION III
LAWS AND REGULATIONS ON
NET NEUTRALITY: CREATING
A CONDUCIVE INTERNET ECO-SYSTEM
4:15 pm – 6:15 pm

30. Ms. Jyoti Pawar asked the audience
whether there is a need for network
neutrality regulation in India? Considering
the fact that internet penetration in India is
low and that there are many emerging issues
which still need to be considered (e.g. data
privacy of users, nature of commercial
agreements between different players), she
feels that a regulatory framework is the best
way forward. According to her, some of the
aspects which the proposed regulatory
framework for net neutrality must consider
including,cyber-security,dataprivacyandminimumQOS.
Mr. Abhishek Malhotra raised an
important question as to whether existing
legal regime is sufficient to address the
challenge raised by net neutrality i.e.,
providing access to end user on non
discriminatory basis. He feels that law of
torts and law of contracts can provide an
important starting point to study the nature
of discrimination associated with net
neutrality. Studying issues related to net
neutrality debate in other countries and laws
governing other broadcasting media will be
useful as well. He articulated the following three principles of net
neutrality in India- no unfavourable blocking, no throttling and no
favourableaccessformoremoney.
Chair: Professor R. Sudarshan, Dean, Jindal School of Government
andPublicPolicy(JSGP)
Mr. Abhishek Malhotra
Managing Partner
TMT Law Practice
Ms. Jyoti Pawar
Partner
Economic Laws Practice
Mr. Yogesh Singh classified different
players in the net neutrality debate-telcos,
OTT, professional internet users and
amateur internet users. He felt that the
objective of net neutrality regulation for
India's better digital future must provide
access to amateur internet users and non-
users. He emphasized that enhancing access
to internet improves GDP by 1.4% [World
Bank estimate].This will require
Mr. Yogesh Singh
Partner, Trilegal
22

31. preservation of openness of internet without compromising access over it
in an evolving Indian internet industry. It will also require a better
understanding of laws pertaining to India’s constitution, competition and
consumer protection. According to him, any proposed model for net
neutrality regulation must consider the key principles of no
discrimination and reasonable network management. He feels that users
must pay only for the apps that they use and certain apps must be made
freelyavailabletoeveryuser.
Professor Gupta informed the audience
about how rise of ‘User Generated Content’
(i.e. UGC) in today’s world has changed the
shape of net neutrality debate. Providing
access is much more critical as the users have
now become a source of information in
information based internet markets. He
outlined a trajectory for the future of internet
withmorerevenuesharingmodelsduetorise
innumberofusersandUGC.Hefeelsthatthe
users should pay only for data packs and
nothing more. He concluded his talk by
informing the audience that law should, wait for some time, understand
all issues and then decide the parameters of India’s not net neutrality
policy.
Professor Indranath Gupta
Associate Professor
JGLS
Mr. Rajan S. Mathews commenced his
talk by convincingly pointing out to the
audience on how the decision of network
operators to provide costless, seamless,
integration of their networks contributed to
rise of world wide network. Originally
conceptualized as an intra-university
knowledge network to be subsidized by the
Government, the rise of online market
aggregators with their own server on
subsequent World Wide Web gave rise to
commercial internet. He then articulated the
need to understand net neutrality and develop subsequent regulations
from a country specific perspective. Unlike other developed countries
which have five high capacity networks - fixed land line, satellite,
mobility, cable and Government networks; India is majorly dependent on
spectrum constrained mobile networks. Accordingly, Mr. Mathews
articulated the following three expectations from network neutrality
regulationsinIndia:
Rajan S. Mathews
Director General
Cellular Operators Association of India
23

32. 1. Same services should be subjected to same regulations. For example,
Facebook can give social networking services free of cost but it should pay
forFacebookMessengerasitissimilartoSMSprovidedbytelcos.
2. OTTs should be lightly regulated to realise the potential of the mobile
internet
3. Situate net neutrality in the broader context of internet governance. If
Government of India stands by its commitment for a multilateral
governance model for internet governance, then we can't expect the
internettobetrulyneutral.
24

33. DISTINGUISHED
VALEDICTORY ADDRESS
(Transcript)
6:15 pm – 7:00 pm

34. Esteemed Vice-Chancellor, Information
Commissioner, other esteemed Guests,
students, gentleman and respectable
audience!
Let me begin with some caveats and some
clarifications.
The caveat is that the process of consultation
on net neutrality is still under way. Although
the last comments will come in today, it does
not mean that consultation is over!
Thereafter we will still have open house
discussions and so the process of consultation continues. This implies
that I am not in a position to give you any views- my views, the regulatory
authority's views or anything on this matter. However, this will not
constrain me from drawing on material which is already in the public
domain.
The second point I want to make in terms of clarification is that, at no
point of time, when the authority issued any paper on the matter, was it
the intention of TRAI to start policing the internet. It was not our idea that
we would regulate the internet. Unfortunately, what has happened is that
people have conflated ideas- some out of confusion and some purely out
of mischief. Indeed, India needs to seriously debate on the issue of net
neutrality to facilitate evidence based decision making and then only
shouldwemakeupourmindsratherthantheotherwayround.
Let me begin with what are the sources of the problem in two aspects
–first, there are Over the Top (OTT) players and some of them are in the
same business as telecom service providers. So the question arises that if
an OTT application is going to provide voice and text services, then how is
it any different from our TSPs? And if there is no difference in terms of
functionality of services then shouldn't we have a level playing field with
same regulatory compliance so that the same regulatory cost is borne by
OTTsandTSPs?
The second aspect of the problem arose because there are huge number of
OTT applications which are data hungry and they have congested the
network creating a congestion externality. Now standard congestion
externality is dealt in a standard way in economics textbook-the one who
creates it also cleans it up. Hence, the congestor of network should pay for
congestion.Thisisanunexceptionableprinciple.
Having understood the source of the problem, the question that now
confronts us is how we are going to solve this problem in the Indian
context. Assume that audience on my right (say 100 million people) are
the only bunch of people who have access to internet at 512 kbps and rest
of us (say 900 million) are not connected. What will happen if these 900
Dr. Rahul Khullar
Former Chairman
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
26

35. million people get connected to the net? Will all of us still get access to
internet at 512 kbps? Indeed, broadband works like money in bank i.e.,
notallpeoplecanuseitatthesametime.
Now let me go back to the general problem and ask - How have other
jurisdictions dealt with the issue of net neutrality? In spite of a 20 year
history, US still doesn't have a public law on internet and FCC didn't have
legal authority to deal with these issues. In Europe, each country made a
make-shift arrangement. For instance, most countries including
Germany and France treat communication based OTT, as separate class
of electronic communications and they are subjected to a light licensing
requirement. In UK, the regulator favored TSPS to get back their return
on investments. On the other hand, Netherlands and Slovenia passed a
law mandating net neutrality. In finale, I wish to inform you that in no
country in the world do you have any clear definition of what constitutes
net neutrality, nor do you have any clear idea about how to deal with this
problem.
Let me close this business on what others have tried and done because I
will come at it right at the end. I think throughout the day you must have
heard arguments on both sides. Both sides have very compelling
arguments. On one side - Who is the TSP to decide what I will choose or
what I will not choose? Why is TSP throttling innovation? Why is TSP
throttling creativity? Why do you want to try and police something that is
workingfine without policing? Whyareyou being hamhanded interms of
regulations? OTTs and finally I pay for connections- big deal? Why I need
to pay anymore? The other sides of the argument are - Do you seriously
think I can run a system that provides service without traffic
management? Who is going to pay for infrastructure? Who is going to pay
for spectrum? Who is going to pay for towers? Who going to pay for roll
out? Indeed, you have extremely strong and passionate arguments on
bothsides.
th
Now I want to stress on the public policy angle of this problem. On 5 of
MaytheMinisterofParliamentsaidthat:
(I)Wearecommittedtoanopeninternetforall,“emphasisall”
(ii) Public Policy is about including everybody, bridging the digital divide,
broadbandforalletc.
(iii) This has to be no one's arguments; it's not as clear cut as people are
seentobemakingoutofit.
(iv) there shall always be situations when regulator will be required (e.g.
traffic management, security of the state and law and behold
infrastructure).But the problem is –how do you conceive any potential
solution? In a country where every citizen still doesn't have access to
electricity and safe, drinking water- how critical is accessibility to
internet? Indeed, the way to solve any public policy problem is how do we
conceptualizeasolutionandinternetcan'tbedifferent.
27

36. Everybody talked about some principles which ought to constitute net
neutrality and I think there are certain unexceptionable principles. These
unexceptional principles should not be questioned - a) no blocking b)
transparency c) no throttling. On these three principles, there simply
can't be any debate. This requires public disclosure of pricing and traffic
management priorities as well as a better understanding of platform
markets.
If both sides of platform are not willing to put in cash for investment in
infrastructure – will the Government then stump up the cash? However,
we must realize that beyond a point our financially constrained
Government exchequer is incapable of stumping up the cash for this - you
have to depend upon the private sector and develop ways and means to do
it transparently and in a manner which does not allow them to
manipulate prices under the pretext of high moral grounds. Rather than
micro-managing regulations- we need to lay down some rules, some do's
andsomedon't,what'sacceptableandwhat'snotacceptable.
As a last point, let me propose a way forward. In most countries, what has
happened is that every regulator has beaten his head against this wall and
hasnotcomeupwithanysuccessfulsolution.AsDeanSudarshanpointed
out - India is land of ancient knowledge. If somewhere in that ancient
knowledge you can pull something out, then please tell me- I have got no
solution! The only lesson I have learnt is that as a regulator we have to
agree on certain principles which should stand the test of time and apply
them in different contexts for making consistent policy decisions. These
principleshavetobedeliberatedbyallstakeholders.
My counsel to all of you who are going to grapple with this public policy
issue as we move forward, is that - don't try to deal with this matter by
passing some detailed public policy or going to Parliament and wasting
their time with some comprehensivelegislation.As informedto us, 76 out
of 84 countries have not done it. If they have not done it, why do we want
to be the first? The more sensible thing is stand back, think, think slowly
anddeliberateonwhatwewantandwhatwedon'twant.
The quicker we get to the rules of the game, which are not codified as
regulation or rules, but accepted by all stakeholders as practice, the
quicker we get to a solution, the quicker we will roll out the investment for
delivering broadband to all, the quicker we will achieve it. My
understanding of this regulation for the last three years is that- the more
regulation you make, the more micro management you try to do, the
worse you make the problem. Simpler the rules, the simpler the
compliance, the easier is the way things move forward. With grand
ambitions of 'Broadband for all' and 'Digital India', it is high time for
those of us in a position to influence public policy to start thinking of the
investment which is required in this sector and start thinking of creative
solutionsonhowitwillgetdone.
Thankyouforyourpatience,LadiesandGentleman
28

37. CONCLUSION

38. 30
The seminar and panel discussion on 'Net Neutrality and the Future of
Digital India' was successfully conducted by O. P. Jindal Global
University at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on 8th May 2015.The
objective of this timely seminar was to better understand the nature of
issues concerning net neutrality in India as well as generate meaningful
insights on issues/policies related to the governance of India's digital
future. The seminar witnessed participation from a diverse set of
professionals (including parliamentarians, government officials,
regulators, internet activists, engineers, economists, academics,
scholars, mathematicians, policymakers, media professionals and
lawyers) who deliberated the various issues related to India's net
neutrality debate. Their valuable thought leadership and expert advice is
summarizedbelow.
First, there is a need for an appropriate articulation of the term 'net
neutrality' for the Indian context. It was discussed by several panelists
that the existing consensus on net neutrality is misleading, as the term
means different things for different stakeholders of the Indian society.
Further, several panelists agreed that deliberations over the articulation
of the term 'net neutrality' should place emphasis on the principles of
accessibility,competitionandinnovation.
Second, it was emphasized by several panelists that the net neutrality
debate is still evolving and that the Government/regulators should not
'jump the gun' and come up with a definitive, extensive and rigid 'clear-
cut' policy on net neutrality for India. They must acknowledge the fact
that internet based technologies are quite dynamic by nature and there is
a very limited public understanding of how these technologies will roll
out in Indian context. They must wait for all possible factors to play out,
understand how practices are evolving at the ground level and then
develop certain broad regulatory principles/framework which would
serve as a guide in developing consistent public-policy based solutions to
India'sinternetgovernanceissues.
Third, the Government's policy stance on net neutrality must adhere to
thefollowingsixcoreprinciples:
(i) User is the king and user choice cannot be compromised. However,
the interests of future generation of internet users cannot be
compromised for short term interests of the current generation of
internetusers.
(ii) Same type of services should be subject to same threshold of
regulations.
(iii) There should be no blocking, no throttling or inexplicable slowing
down of lawful sites/services/applications by network
intermediaries.

39. (iv) There should be no conflict of interest between content carrier and
contentproviderwithrespecttointernetbasedservices.
(v) Providers of internet based services should be transparent with
respecttotheirpricingmodelsandoperations.
(vi) Providers of internet based services should be held accountable for
the'QualityofService'promisedbythemtotheircustomers.
Fourth, there are opportunities for policymakers, academics and
business strategists to innovate, formulate and implement policies on
governance of internet based issues in India. Meaningful inter-
disciplinary collaborations between the Government, industry and
academia can play an important role in utilizing these opportunities
creatively.
Finally, the organizers of the seminar as well as the participants believe
that the debate on net neutrality in India has still not settled. However,
the meaningful insights generated during the seminar will help the
Government of India in realizing the emancipatory vision of its 'Digital
India' initiative i.e., to breach India's digital divide and enable the
transformationofIndiaintoaprosperous,knowledgebasedsociety.
31

40. ANNEXURES

41. www.jsia.edu.in
www.jgbs.edu.in
www.jgls.edu.in www.jsgp.edu.in
India's First Transnational Humanities School
Jindal School of
Liberal Arts & Humanities
www.jslh.edu.in
O.P. Jindal Global University
A Private University Promoting Public Service
You are cordially invited to the
Friday, 8 May 2015
9:00 am – 7:00 pm
India Habitat Centre
Lodhi Road, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi- 110003
Date:
Time:
Venue: Gulmohar,
Faculty Coordinator:
Professor Vikas Kathuria, Assistant Professor, JGLS, vkathuria@jgu.edu.in
Professor Avirup Bose, Assistant Professor, JGLS, abose@jgu.edu.in
Seminar Coordinator: Prateek Pathak, Research Associate, JGU, pdpathak@jgu.edu.in
Seminar and Panel Discussion on
NET NEUTRALITY AND THE FUTURE OF
DIGITAL INDIA
Guests of Honour
Dr. Shashi Tharoor
Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs
will deliver the Presidential Address
Chief Executive Officer, National Internet Exchange of India
Dr. Govind
will deliver the Keynote Address
Dr. Rahul Khullar
Chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
will deliver the Valedictory Address
Dr. Madabhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu
Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission
will deliver the Special Address

42. Programme
Friday, May 8, 2015
9:00 am – 9:30 am Registration
INAUGURAL SESSION: 9:30 am – 10:45 am
SESSION I: 11:00 am – 1:00 pm
India's Internet: Voices for its Protection and Promotion
SESSION II: 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Technology and Economics of Net Neutrality: Accessibility, Competition and Innovation
SESSION III: 4:15 pm – 6:15 pm
Laws and Regulations on Net Neutrality: Creating a Conducive Internet Eco-System
VALEDICTORY SESSION: 6:15 pm – 7:00 pm
Welcome Address
Introducing the Seminar
Presidential Address
Keynote Address
Special Address
9:30 am – 9:35 am Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar, Founding Vice Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU)
and Dean, Jindal Global Law School (JGLS)
9:45 am – 10:05 am Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and Chairman, Parliamentary
Standing Committee on External Affairs
10:25 am – 10:45 am
9:35 am – 9:45 am Professors Avirup Bose and Vikas Kathuria, JGLS
10:05 am – 10:25 am Dr. Govind, Chief Executive Officer, National Internet Exchange of India
Professor Shiv Visvanathan, Vice Dean, Jindal School of Government and Public Policy
(JSGP)
Tea Break: 10:45 am – 11:00 am
Chair:
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Professor Stephen P. Marks, Professor, Harvard University, USA and Distinguished Visiting Professor, JGLS
Speakers
Dr. Anja Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Dr. Geeta Gouri, Former Member, Competition Commission of India
Mr. Jiten Jain, Chief Executive Officer, Indian Infosec Consortium
Dr. Mahesh Uppal, Director, ComFirst
Mr. Udai Mehta, Director, CUTS Center for Competition, Investment and Economic Regulations
Professor Avirup Bose, Assistant Professor & Assistant Director, Centre for International Trade and Economic Laws, JGLS and Former
Expert Consultant to the Competition Commission of India
Lunch: 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Chair:
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Professor Parkash Chander, Professor, Jindal School of Government & Public Policy (JSGP)
Speakers
Dr. Anindya Chaudhuri, Global Development Network
Ms. Bishakha Bhattacharya, Director, Government Relations & Public Policy, National Association of Software and Services Companies
Mr. Nandan Kamath, Principal Lawyer, The Law Offices of Nandan Kamath
Dr. Navneet Sharma, Associate Professor, School of Competition Law, Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs
Professor Vikas Kathuria, Assistant Professor and Assistant Director, Michigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law
and Policy, JGLS
Tea: 4:00 pm – 4:15 pm
Chair:
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Professor R. Sudarshan, Dean, Jindal School of Government & Public Policy (JSGP)
Ÿ
Speakers
Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Managing Partner, TMT Law Practice
Ms. Jyoti Pawar, Partner, Economic Laws Practice
Mr. R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and, Member, Law Commission of India
Mr. Yogesh Singh, Partner, Trilegal
Professor Indranath Gupta, Associate Professor, JGLS
Opening Remarks
Valedictory Address
Special Address
Vote of Thanks
6:15 pm – 6:20 pm Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar, Founding Vice Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU)
6:20 pm – 6:40 pm Dr. Rahul Khullar, Chairman,Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
6:40 pm – 6:55 pm Dr. Madabhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner, Central Information
Commission
6:55 pm – 7:00 pm Professor (Dr.) Y.S.R. Murthy, Registrar, JGU

43. Net neutrality: Are we
missing something?
Net neutrality: The remedy lies somewhere between the ‘free internet’ slogans
and the unregulated pricing of content by telecom service providers...
Much has been written on net neutrality in India especially since Bharti Airtel sought to
chargethecontentprovidersbasedonthetypeofdata.
The debate seems one-sided with most of the media, politicians, Twitterati and now even
the glitterati siding with net neutrality. With the debate being one-sided, is there a point
that the collective sentimentality of the people is just missing? In fact, the kind of net
neutralitythatthemajorityseeksmaynotberighttoensurelong-termconsumerinterest.
Internet is a multi-sided platform that connects the content providers with the users. Like
anyplatform,ithasitsoperationalcosts,andconstantpressures toupgrade andinnovate.
We have seen how moving from narrowband to broadband has brought efficiency not
only in our daily conversations but has also opened new opportunities such as e-
commerce and e-health. The importance of innovation in the telecom sector cannot be
overlooked. One cannot imagine supervising a surgery or teaching mathematics to
students in the far-flung Northeast India through an average unreliable narrowband or
2Gnetwork.Thisupgrade,certainly,requiresinvestment.
With the rise of the over the top (OTT) services, internet service providers (ISPs) have lost
a large chunk of their revenue base to the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) operators
such as WhatsApp and Facebook. On the other hand, OTT services, very often, generate
revenue through advertisements. It is important to note that, with the latest technology,
OTTappsoffervoiceanddatamuchliketelecomserviceproviders.
Therefore, in the competition law parlance, regular telecom operators and OTT operators
compete in the same relevant market. However, there is no level-playing field as telecom
operators have to invest in infrastructure such as ducts and towers, unlike OTT players.
The OTT apps are successful because of improvement and innovation in the internet
services. The votaries of net neutrality should try using the WhatsApp calling feature on
their regular narrowband connection! Therefore, in the long run, if the incentives of the
ISPsarenotensured,thequalityofinternetwillbestagnantorretrograde.
The peculiarities of the Indian market must be looked into before one takes a side in the
raging debate between the proponents and opponents of net neutrality. Thanks to the
over-competitive market with eight mobile service providers, India has one of the lowest
calling rates in the world. This price war is good for the consumers; after all, this is what
themarketeconomypromises!
June 22, 2015

44. However, one should see reduced revenues of operators against the backdrop of
stratospheric auction prices that they recently paid to buy or retain the spectrum.
Furthermore, there is the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) as well to fund the
Digital India initiative. Seen together, these policies leave little surplus for investing in
improvingqualityofservicesorinnovation.
One thing is clear—we all want inclusive internet.After all,it haschanged the way humans
thinkandinteract.Therearerevolutionsandevolutions that owe theirgenesis tointernet.
Easy entry at the content provider level is also necessary to promote innovation. We
cannot forget that giants such as Google and Facebook were once small start-ups. At the
same time, internet has to be efficient and innovative, which can be ensured only if service
providers are adequately compensated. How can telecom operators invest and innovate if
there are no incentives to do so? Ruefully, the sentimental arguments advanced in favour
of net neutrality are not mindful of this reality. The correct approach, therefore, lies
somewhere between the ‘free internet’ slogans and the unregulated pricing of content by
thetelecomserviceproviders.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has sought the comments of
stakeholders in order to propose guidelines and regulations on net neutrality. Some have
argued that there is no need of regulation to ensure net neutrality, since the Competition
CommissionofIndia(CCI)isempowered totakecognisance overthismatter.TheCCIhas
already started its probe into the Airtel Zero plan. However, not adhering to net neutrality
can be a competition violation only if the service provider is found to be dominant in the
relevant market. With four big telecom operators in the Indian market, it is really difficult
to find one dominant player. Thus, competition law is insufficient to remedy the market
failure in this case. This makes a valid case for appropriate regulation on net-neutrality.
However, the optimal regulation that increases consumer welfare, both in the short and
the long-run, will have to take a practical approach away from the sentimentality of the
masses.
TheauthorisassistantprofessorattheJindalGlobalLawSchool,Sonipat
A ‘chota recharge’ model
for the internet
June 22, 2015
Allowing telecom companies to calibrate internet access prices, based on
consumer affordability, can increase usage by current customers and attract
new customers
Open internet evangelicals have been scoring a few victories of late. First, the withdrawal
of an e-commerce application from a service provider’s Zero-rated platform and the

45. defensive overtones of Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter seemed to suggest that the
‘openists’ have got it right. Second, the artful management of the net neutrality campaign
has created a political environment where the government’s non-espousal of the activists’
stand—of absolute net neutrality—will be perceived as endorsement of crony capitalism.
Policy-making amidst such shrill noise is tough, and will require a true statesman to cut
theGordianknotofthispolariseddebate.
So acrimonious is the debate that few are willing to notice that an absolute net neutrality
policy would be blatantly anti-poor. It severely curtails India’s step towards universal
digital access—hurts expansion of coverage, especially to rural areas, and perpetuates the
dividebetweenIndia’sdigitalhavesandhave-nots.
Those who demonised zero-rating plans as ‘internet racism’ have failed to consider their
potential to become a narrative of inclusive internet growth. Just as the ‘chota recharge’
schemes of Indian telecom providers in the late 2000s—a micro-prepaid recharge
scheme that offered talk-time in denominations as low as $0.25, marking a shift from the
earlier urban-centric monthly mobile bills, ideally suited for the low-income daily-wage
earner—providedaninnovativepricediscriminationmodelbasedontheaffordabilityofa
telecom user, in the same way zero-rating plans can allow the Indian internet industry to
includethepoor.
Zero-rating plans are joint marketing tools between network carriers and content
providers to better market mobile-based internet access to new markets. These plans
essentially help overcoming the high costs of internet adoption in developing countries
such as India—especially for those customers at the ‘base of the pyramid’, for whom even
the awareness of the internet and its potential relevance to their lives is low or non-
existent.
With India’s affordable smartphone markets being one of the most robust in the world,
such a transition would have been easier as long as such zero-rating platforms are made
availabletoallcontentproducersonequalterms.
In principle, why should not a factory worker or a vegetable seller, living in a mofussil
Indian town, be able to buy a micro data pack and access certain preferred e-commerce
websites for free to purchase consumer goods at affordable prices; where the e-commerce
firms bear the tab? Why should farmers not be allowed to purchase a zero-rated pack to
access farming, agricultural, education and other e-governance apps for free; where the
government subsidises the carrier for such prioritised access? Why should an alleged
neutral net for the urban middle-class be allowed to unprioritise the needs of those at the
bottomofthedigitalpyramid?
According to the latest Trai data, India has 952 million wireless subscribers and only 79
million (a paltry 8.5%) broadband subscribers, and if one includes both wireline and
wireless, broadband penetration in India is, at most, 10%. Compare this with developed
countrieswhichhavegreaterthan100%voicepenetrationand80%datapenetration.
This gaping disparity between India’s digital haves and have-nots should make it obvious
that government policy should provide access to the internet; in fact, it should be the
regulatory priority. Zero-rating plans are examples of service process innovations which,
through the instrument of the market, can increase India’s digital access to urban and
rural poor. Such models of social entrepreneurship should not be made stillborn in India
byheavyexanteregulatoryregime.

46. However, for its welfare implications to fructify, zero plans need to be offered by telecom
companies on a non-discriminatory basis to all over-the-top (OTT) content
providers—whether those catering to e-commerce sales or those providing irrigation tips
tofarmers.
Allowing the telecom companies to calibrate internet access prices, based upon consumer
affordability, would increase usage by current customers and attract new customers. The
resulting higher utilisation of the broadband network may enable operators to cover opex
and capex, generating profits that make it possible to further grow networks at low-price
levels, especially where such growth is most required—the rural India. This type of price
calibration has been used as successful ‘long-tail’ retail strategy, of selling less to more
number of people—no-frills airlines and the sachet-sized consumer non-durables sold by
the FMCG companies are a few examples—where a compete overhaul of conventional
businessmodelsenergisedmarketsatthebottomofthepyramid.
The fear that zero plans, by charging content providers, would make it more difficult for
‘edge entrepreneurs’ to enter the market, is a credible one. However, economic prudence
suggests that it is in the interest of broadband providers to maximise the value of their
network, by creating diversity of content. To block out edge entrepreneurs—which could
drive millions of users to another network—would reduce the profits that the network
couldgenerateand,thus,reducethevalueofthenetwork.
Therefore, it is not in the economic interest of networks to block content, more so given
the robust ‘churn rate’—the percentage of users leaving one network for another. Telecom
consumers, now armed with the number portability facility, face negligible switching
costs and will simply shift away from networks which build a reputation for blocking or
throttling content. If, however, such fears become a reality, India’s robust anti-trust laws
areequippedtoeffectivelyremedysuchmarketirregularity.
It is important to clarify here that India’s internet access problems cannot be solely solved
by private sector business models. India needs timely allocation of sufficient spectrum,
allowing competitive secondary spectrum markets, and heavy public spending to roll out
high-speed backbone networks nationwide. However, zero rate plans in the interim
should (1) allow small steps towards universal digital access and (2) empower millions of
Indian digital have-nots with the internet experience, bettering the quality of their
lives—be it internet-based education, employment or the giddy satisfaction of consumer
‘retailtherapy’.Theyshouldbeallowedtheir‘dayinthesun’.
Payal Malik is advisor and head of the Economics Division, Competition Commission of
India (CCI). Avirup Bose is an honorary visiting faculty of Competition Law at the
JindalGlobalLawSchoolandaformerexpertconsultanttoCCI.Viewsarepersonal

47. As SEBI tries to regulate equity crowdfunding, the Internet promises
to play disrupter.
Roughly a year ago, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a
consultationpapersettingoutitsproposaltoregulateequity-basedcrowdfunding
in India. Comments were solicited from the public. Earlier this week, SEBI
announced that it was working on the norms and that a decision may be taken
soon.
AquickreviewoftheSEBIpapergivesuspointerstowhatthepossible regulations
could be. Under the proposed terms, three entities, namely, the crowdfunding
platform, the investor, and the issuing company, would be regulated. The issuing
company is restricted in terms of its size, the amount of funds to be raised and its
age. The investor is restricted in terms of its accreditation, minimum net worth
and, in case of eligible retail investors, the maximum investment that may be
made overall or in a single crowdfunding event. Crowdfunding platforms are also
restricted in terms of who may set them up and the checks and balances to be put
inplace.
When three is a company
By Arjya B. Majumdar
7 July 2015

48. While certain concepts such as accredited investors and maximum caps on
investment in a single crowdfunded venture have been transplanted from the
Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in the U.S., others are homegrown.
Largely, SEBI’s proposed regulations do not give an exemption to small
companies to access public funds, as in the case of the JOBS Act. Perhaps a major
reason for the lack of exemption stems from the fact that Indian corporate finance
markets are simply not as developed or sophisticated as the ones in the U.S. and
otherdevelopedeconomies.
The proposed regulations require that equity crowdfunded companies follow the
requirements in Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013. This means that
companies may offer their securities to a maximum of 200 persons and may have
up to 50 shareholders, without being required to undertake a public issue. Thus,
the act of crowdfunding, under the SEBI, cannot include an offer for shares and
canbeusedonlytogarnerinterestinthecompanyseekingfunds.
Cross-border crowdfunding
However, SEBI’s paper does not take into account one critical aspect — that of
cross-border crowdfunding. A number of countries have passed regulations,
falling largely into two categories. The first is the U.S. model, which creates an
exemption as described previously. Other countries that fall into this category
include Australia, Italy, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. The second category
includes countries that do not offer an exemption, such as India, Hong Kong and
Malaysia.
Of particular interest is the crowdfunding law in New Zealand. It specifically
allows intermediary service providers, such as crowdfunding portals, to be
licensed.Thislicensingregimeisintendedtofacilitatesuitablyregulated ‘peer-to-
peer lending’ and ‘crowdfunding’ services to operate. With regard to the fund-
seeking company, the upper limit for raising funds is capped at NZ$2 million, but
there are no upper limits on investment, nor is there a distinction between
sophisticated and retail investors, making New Zealand one of the most
crowdfunding-friendlyjurisdictions.
There are two ways we may consider the case for cross-border crowdfunding in
the Indian context. First, a company seeking funds from non-resident investors.
Second, a company set up outside India seeking funds from investors around the
world, including India. In the first case, the provisions of Section 42 of the
CompaniesAct,2013wouldcontinuetoapply.
Therefore, the question arises whether it would be possible to have a foreign
company raise funds in India and for foreign investors to participate in
crowdfunding activities in India, subject to extant inward and outward bound
investment regulations and policies. But given the nature of both crowdfunding
and the global reach of the Internet, it is possible that Indian investors may be
involvedincrowdfundingactivitiesinotherjurisdictions.
Overseas companies
The ability of Indian residents to invest in overseas companies, coupled with
crowdfunding-friendly laws in other countries, come together to create an
interesting scenario. Assume that a company incorporated in India is unable to

49. raise funds from the crowd. It simply sets up a parent in a crowdfunding-friendly
jurisdiction, which then seeks crowdfunding from investors around the world. An
Indian retail investor, who was hitherto unable to participate in the equity of the
Indian company, is now able to do so, subject to the Overseas Direct Investment
regulations. The funds raised by the parent company are then invested in the
Indian subsidiary. This possible scenario brings to light the global nature of
Internet-based corporate fundraising. The cross-border aspect of the platforms
and, more particularly, the uncertainty surrounding contract law application in
different jurisdictions has yet to be dealt with effectively. This has been
acknowledgedbytheInternationalOrganizationofSecuritiesCommissions.
Thus, we see that in jurisdictions where crowdfunding activities are not regulated,
or have minimal regulations, it would be easier to raise funds and then invest in an
Indian company. The opportunities arising from the resultant regulatory
arbitrage could then be used by fund-seeking companies in India. This regulatory
arbitrage has been used in other modes of financing as well. It is not unusual to see
companies offer a minimal IPO in India only to undertake a substantially higher
fundraising exercise through a GDR issue in a listing-friendly jurisdiction, such as
Luxembourg.
How does a securities regulator deal with this then? One option would be to
completely ban overseas investment by individuals unless they conform to the
crowdfunding regulations. A more elegant — albeit difficult — solution, in my
opinion, requires securities regulators across the world to work together to
removepossibleavenuesofregulatoryarbitrage.
Havingsaid that,however,we mayexpect that some jurisdictions will see inthis as
an opportunity to begin a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of crowdfunding
regulations. Coupled with low capital gains taxes, a jurisdiction with a relatively
low level of crowdfunding regulation would certainly attract fund-seeking
companies.
While the Internet has acted as an enabling development in almost all industries
without fail, it has its disruptive effects from time to time as well. The traditional
boundaries of corporate finance are breaking down. It is time to shed older
notions of corporate finance within the frameworks of political confines and
instead address the issue of the world being better connected, even within the
realmofcorporatefinance.
(Arjya B. Majumdar is Director, Michigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate
andFinancialLawandPolicy,O.P.JindalGlobalUniversity.)

52. Jindal Journal of
International Affairs
Political Violence
August 2013 Volume 1 Issue 2
ISSN 2249–8095

53. JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY
ISSUE 1VOLUME 2SEPTEMBER 2014
ISSN 2277–8743
ARTICLES
FOREWORD
Federalism and Democratic
Reform in China with
Lessons from India
Michael C. Davis
Unifying a Binary Ontology
of Law and Policy
Dr. Nikhil Moro
The Political Economy of Tax:
Patterns of Incorporation and
Political Institutions in Brazil
Aaron Schneider
Dealing with
the Post 2015
Development Challenges
Naresh Singh.
Political Will and
Sub-national Governance
Reform in India
Reflections on HDRs and
Development Policy Loans
Suraj Kumar
Armed Conflict and
Women
Sukriti Chauhan
O.P. Jindal Global University
A Private University Promoting Public Service
JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY
JINDALJOURNALOFPUBLICPOLICYISSUE1VOLUME2SEPTEMBER2014
JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY
ISSUE 1VOLUME 2SEPTEMBER 2014
ISSN 2277–8743
ARTICLES
FOREWORD
Federalism and Democratic
Reform in China with
Lessons from India
Michael C. Davis
Unifying a Binary Ontology
of Law and Policy
Dr. Nikhil Moro
The Political Economy of Tax:
Patterns of Incorporation and
Political Institutions in Brazil
Aaron Schneider
Dealing with
the Post 2015
Development Challenges
Naresh Singh.
Political Will and
Sub-national Governance
Reform in India
Reflections on HDRs and
Development Policy Loans
Suraj Kumar
Armed Conflict and
Women
Sukriti Chauhan
O.P. Jindal Global University
A Private University Promoting Public Service
JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY
JINDALJOURNALOFPUBLICPOLICYISSUE1VOLUME2SEPTEMBER2014

55. www.jsia.edu.in www.jsgp.edu.in
www.jgbs.edu.in
India's First Transnational Humanities School
Jindal School of
Liberal Arts & Humanities
www.jslh.edu.in
O.P. Jindal Global University
A Private University Promoting Public Service
Vakil Self
India’s First ‘Do It Yourself’ Company Law Research Project
You are cordially invited to a
THE GRAND LAUNCH OF
Michigan – Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and
Financial Law and Policy
Friday, 8 May 2015
3:30 pm – 4:00 pm
India Habitat Centre
Lodhi Road, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi- 110003
Date:
Time:
Venue: Gulmohar,

56. UNITED NATIONS
UNIVERSITY PUBLIC DIPLOMACY DIVISION
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
UNPA
CAMPAIGN
9-10 September 2011
Venue:
O.P. Jindal Global University
Sonipat Narela Road, Near Jagdishpur Village
Sonipat, Haryana - 131001, NCR of Delhi
Cordially invite you to participate in the
International Conference
‘‘The Internet and a Changing World’’
on

57. We cordially invite you to the Conference
on
Organized by
Centre for Postgraduate Legal Studies
Inaugural Address
Dr. R.K. Raghavan
Advisor, Cyber Security, Tata Consultancy Services; Former Director, CBI
India's First Transnational Humanities School
Jindal School of
Liberal Arts & Humanities
Knowledge Partner
In collaboration with
The Information Society: Challenges for India
Centre for South Asian Legal Studies
Centre for Global Governance & Policy
Centre for the Study of Urban Transformation
Centre for Ethics, Law & Political Economy
Centre for Intellectual Property Rights & Technology Law
JGU Postgraduate Students Initiative
Date:
O.P. Jindal Global University
Sonipat, Haryana, NCR of Delhi
Venue: Time:
Saturday
7 June 2014
Sunday
8 June 2014
DAY 1 & 2
9:30 am – 5:00 pm
9:30 am – 4:00 pm
Keynote Address
His Excellency Ambassador Mr. Viljar Lubi
Ambassador of the Republic of Estonia to India
Special Address
Ms. Kiran Mehra-Kerpelman
Director, United Nations Information Centre for India & Bhutan, New Delhi, India

58. O.P. Jindal Global University
A Private University Promoting Public Service
O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) is a non-profit, philanthropic, multidisciplinary, research oriented university.
Some of the important milestones that JGU has reached in the last five years since its founding in 2009 are:
Ÿ Established Five inter-disciplinary schools: Jindal Global Law School; Jindal Global Business
School; Jindal School of International Affairs; Jindal School of Government and Public Policy and
Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities through a philanthropic initiative of over US$100 Million
(approx. Rs. 500 crore) by the Founding Chancellor, Mr. Naveen Jindal in memory of his father, Mr.
O.P. Jindal.
Ÿ Established the Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences (JIBS) as an institute that is engaged in
fundamental research, knowledge creation, publications, training programmes, seminars and
workshops and consultancies for understanding human behaviour from a multidisciplinary
perspective, while promoting studies in behavioural, psycho-physiological, neuroscience, genetic, and
psychometricassessment.
Ÿ Admitted as of August 2014, over 1650 full time students studying in various disciplines, while
maintaininga1:15 faculty-studentratio.
Ÿ Promoting access to education through the award of scholarships and fellowships to the tune of over
US$ 2.5 Million/ 15 Crores every year with over 75% of the students at JGU studying with some form of
meritormeansbasedscholarship/studentship.
Ÿ Graduated as of August 2014, three batches of over 500 students from the LLB, LLM, MBA, M.A.
(Diplomacy, Law & Business), MA (Public Policy) programmes from the Jindal Global Law School,
Jindal Global Business School, Jindal School of International Affairs and the Jindal School of
GovernmentandPublicPolicy.
Ÿ Recruited over 140 full time faculty members to the five schools of JGU, including more than 25
graduates from some of the leading universities of the world that include, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard,
Yale,Stanford,Columbia,Brown,Cornell,JohnsHopkinsandBerkeleyalongwith3RhodesScholars.
Ÿ Appointed over 20% of international faculty members and almost all Indian faculty members with
stronginternationalqualificationsandexperience.
Ÿ Published Over 500 peer reviewed articles, articles in journals and law reviews, research reports,
policypapers, bookchapters,andbooksbythefacultymembersofJGU.
Ÿ Hosted over 500 lectures, seminars, workshops, conferences including a conference on "The Future of
Indian Universities" inaugurated by the President of India and a conference on "Federalisms and
Localisms" inaugurated by the Vice President of India with participation by scholars and practitioner
fromIndiaandaroundtheworld.
Ÿ Developed international collaborations with over 100 universities and institutions in 32 countries in
the world implementing 10 different form of partnerships: faculty exchanges, student exchanges, joint
teaching, joint research, joint conferences, joint publications, dual degree programmes, joint executive
education programmes, summer and winter schools and study abroad programmes. Nearly 100
internationalstudentsenrolledinvariousprogrammes.
Ÿ Implemented international collaborations with Universities around the world, including Harvard,
Yale, Columbia, Michigan, Indiana, Cornell, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-
Davis, Oxford, Cambridge, Sydney, Melbourne and other reputed universities in Africa, Middle East,
LatinAmerica,Europe, USA,Canada,SouthandSouthEastAsiaandAustralia.
Ÿ Established the Jindal Institute of Leadership Development and Executive Education (JILDEE) that
brings together all continuing and executive education, leadership development, training and capacity
buildinginitiativesacrosscorporateandpublicsectors.
Ÿ Received grants and contracts for training, research and capacity development initiatives from
various ministries of the Government of India, including for the training of senior IAS (Indian
Administrative Service), IPS (Indian Police Service), Indian Revenue Service (IRS), Indian Trade
Service (ITS) officers and officers of the Indian Army, Navy, Air Force and other police and para-
militaryforces.
Ÿ Received grants and funding for research and capacity building initiatives from the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations University (UNU), Afghanistan Civil Service
Institute for training the Senior Civil Service Officers of the Government of Afghanistan and other
governmental,intergovernmentalandprivatesectororganisations.
Ÿ Built over 80 acres of world-class infrastructure on campus in the National Capital Region of Delhi with
full residency for all students of JGU and other academic blocks, student and faculty housing with
constructedspaceofnearly1millionsquarefeet.

59. O.P. Jindal Global University
Sonipat Narela Road, Sonipat-131001
Haryana, NCR of Delhi, India
Tel.: +91 130 4091801 / 802 / 804 / 805; Fax: +91 130 4091803 / 888
Website: www.jgu.edu.in; Email: info@jgu.edu.in