Deregulation as a tool to discipline the State

Deregulation is among the most consequential administrative reforms undertaken by the State. India’s ongoing efforts to simplify procedures, reduce paperwork, and replace imprisonment ‘with monetary penalties marka decisive shiftin ‘governance, enhancing predictability, lowering transaction costs, and signalling trust in citizens and enterprises. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025 embody this transition from a permission-and-penalty regime to a trust-based government. Yet, beyond these efficiency gains lies a larger question: Do they fulfil the true purpose of deregulation? With the Prime Minister calling for deeper reforms and announcinga High-Level Committee on Deregulation, it is evident that India must now move from administrative simplification toamore fundamental rethinking of whyand how the State regulates.

- Amitabh Kant is former G20 Sherpa & CEO NITI Aayog and Aditya Sinha writes on macroeconomic and geopolitical issues.

‘The Indian State has often treated deregulation asa form of administrative housekeeping. Redundant provisions are deleted, fines rationalised, and digital portals introduced to replace manual processes. While these measures are laudable, they only modify the form of regulation. The deeper question, the substance of regulation, remains largely untouched.

Born ofa socialist ethos, India’s regulatory mindset has treated the State as master rather than midwife to enterprise. Control became the default instinct, regulation a tool to discipline rather than to enable. The citizen or firm is treated as a subject whose conduct must be permitted, monitored, or corrected. This logic pervades even modern statutes, producing a culture of compliance without autonomy. The outcome is an administratively lighter but conceptually unchanged State, one that still imagines order as something to be imposed rather than co-created.

True deregulation requires dismantling this epistemology of control. It involves recognising that the purpose of regulation is not to extend State authority but to structure freedom. Itis to define boundaries within which enterprise and innovation can safely and predictably occur.

Aradical approach must begin from first principles, examining the teleology of regulation and the moral assumptions embedded in law. Three questions are foundational.