Govt’s Satellite Spectrum Allocation to Musk and Ambani Raises Several Doubts
Ankit Raj
New Delhi: National security concerns, risk of potential economic losses, lack of transparency in government decisions – these are among the issues being raised following the Union government's official approval of satellite-based internet services to various companies, including Elon Musk's Starlink and Mukesh Ambani's Jio. The government has yet to disclose the criteria, terms, conditions and rates at which licenses have been granted to these entities.
In an interview with NDTV, Pawan Goenka, chairman of IN-SPACe (Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Centre), confirmed that the majority of the formalities for Starlink have been finalised.
Had a productive meeting with Ms. @Gwynne_Shotwell, President & COO of @SpaceX, on India’s next frontier in connectivity. We delved into opportunities for collaboration in satellite communications to power Digital India’s soaring ambitions and empower every citizen across the… pic.twitter.com/gGiCLC5e1C
— Jyotiraditya M. Scindia (@JM_Scindia) June 17, 2025
In a vast country like India, satellite-based internet services could serve as a transformative solution for hilly or remote regions. Their adoption is on the rise globally. Starlink, in particular, is currently offering satellite-based internet services in over 100 countries. However, the manner in which the Union government has sanctioned this service to select companies prompts numerous serious inquiries.
Firstly, the Modi administration has granted licenses to these companies not via the auction process, but solely through an administrative directive. The transparency of this approach remains uncertain, as the government has not disclosed its specifics.
Secondly, the government has not clarified the terms and conditions associated with the licenses being granted to other domestic and international companies, including Starlink. This situation raises concerns regarding favouritism and the non-transparent distribution of resources.
It is important to highlight that the Telecommunication Act 2023 “provides for assignment of spectrum through administrative process for satellite-based services, listed in the First Schedule of the Act”, as communicated by the government in parliament. This means that decisions can be made administratively rather than through an auction.
Former secretary E.A.S. Sharma has been questioning this matter and has sent letters to the Union cabinet secretary, T.V. Somanathan, and the secretary of the department of telecommunications, Neeraj Mittal, for several months.
Violation of Supreme Court's ruling on 2G spectrum
Speaking to The Wire Hindi, Sharma said, “The direct allocation of satellite spectrum to companies such as Starlink violates the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2G spectrum, which mandates that such resources be distributed through a transparent and public process, rather than behind closed doors.”
The former secretary called for an independent judicial inquiry to ascertain whether there has been a breach of law in the spectrum allocation process. Moreover, he questioned whether the government has provided undue advantages to private enterprises in this context.
Sharma also perceives this situation as a potential threat to national security. “Starlink has connections with the US military. Permitting them to perform direct satellite surveillance in India poses a significant risk to our national security,” he said.
Satellite Internet has emerged as a significant instrument in contemporary warfare. This is the reason why many countries have prohibited foreign entities from offering satellite internet services.
Recently, Iran's parliament approved a ban on Starlink, a decision viewed as part of Iran's strategy to limit external influences following attacks from the US and Israel.
Starlink is also banned in Russia and China. Nevertheless, an investigation by the Wall Street Journal reveals that, despite the restrictions, Starlink internet terminals are accessible on the black market in Russia, where they are being acquired to utilise Starlink's satellite internet service.
The Starlink internet service offers immediate and relatively secure connectivity in conflict zones ranging from Ukraine to Sudan. This capability is also crucial for the operation of drones and other advanced military technologies, which are proving to be pivotal in current warfare.
Due to the straightforward and rapid activation of Starlink devices, Elon Musk's Space-X is also becoming involved in numerous violent conflicts.
India has also faced a similar situation. According to a report published in The Guardian five months ago, militant groups in Manipur are utilising Starlink's satellite-based internet service to circumvent the government's internet restrictions. Although Starlink services have not yet been launched in India, they are permitted in Myanmar, a country sharing its borders with Manipur.
According to a leader of the Meitei separatist militant group 'People's Liberation Army of Manipur (PLA), when the government imposed an internet shutdown following outbreaks of violence, they turned to Starlink devices for connectivity.
Potential loss to the government treasury
As the government has not revealed the rate at which the spectrum has been allocated, there exists a possibility of revenue loss. Moreover, the manner in which the spectrum has been handed over poses a threat of monopoly.
According to Sharma, Starlink is establishing a “cartel” with India's leading telecom companies, Jio and Airtel, which may enable them to monopolise satellite spectrum – potentially detrimental to millions of customers.
From the outset, the government has been reluctant to provide transparency regarding this matter.
In March this year, Congress MP Manish Tewari had asked the communications minister (Jyotiraditya Scindia) in Lok Sabha about satellite-based internet services. At that time, the government did not disclose the list of any applicants.
Tewari had posed this in the Lok Sabha:
“Will the Minister of Communication be pleased to state:
- the manner in which the Union Government plans to regulate space-based internet services to ensure compliance with national laws, promote fair competition and address issues related to spectrum allocation;
- the manner in which the Government will ensure transparency, fairness and optimal use of spectrum in satellite-based services when allocation is done administratively rather than through an auction;
- the steps taken by the Government to regulate and facilitate the operation of space-based internet services in the country particularly in light of the growing demand for high-speed connectivity in remote areas; and
- the mechanisms put in place by the Government to monitor and regulate the security protocols of space-based internet providers to prevent misuse or security breaches?"
The minister of state for communications, Pemmasani Chandrasekhar, had responded that these companies are required to be registered in India and adhere to all security regulations. This includes stipulations that the satellite gateway must be located in India, all traffic must be routed through this gateway, and a buffer zone must be established at the borders.
Manish Tewari's question in Lok Sabha.
Caption - Manish Tiwari's questions
Subsequently, in April 2025, Venkatesh Nayak, the director of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), submitted a Right to Information (RTI) application regarding the issue.
RTI application and a vague response
The RTI inquiry sought to determine the terms and conditions governing the authorisation for satellite-based internet services. The inquiry raised questions about the companies that submitted applications, those that received approva, and the conditions attached to such approvals.
The Union government, in response, revealed the identities of the companies that were granted licenses to offer internet services via satellite. However, it declined to provide the documents that elucidate the standards, conditions and procedures involved in this process.
Following the submission of the initial appeal, on May 28, the First Appellate Authority issued a ruling that included a list of companies awarded licenses. Nevertheless, the remaining information was withheld, referencing Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
These provisions are frequently invoked to refuse information on the basis of 'commercial confidentiality' and 'fiduciary relationship'.
When a request was made for copies of the applications for satellite-based internet services in India, along with the permission letters granted to the aforementioned companies, the government asserted that this information is confidential under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act and cannot be disclosed.
What do sections 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act say?
Under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, specific information is excluded from the definition of public information and may be withheld from disclosure.
Section 8(1)(d):
If the information pertains to business confidentiality (including a company’s technology or business strategy), trade secrets, or intellectual property, and its release could jeopardise the competitive standing of that company – such information is not disclosed under the RTI.
Section 8(1)(e):
If information is obtained by an individual or an organisation within a fiduciary relationship – such as information acquired by a lawyer from a client, or within a bank-client relationship, etc. – then that information is not permitted to be shared.
What was the rationale behind the use of these sections in this case?
The department of telecommunications (DoT) stated that the documents pertaining to the companies' applications and the approvals granted to them are classified under commercial confidentiality (8(1)(d)). Moreover, this information has been provided under a fiduciary relationship (8(1)(e)).
However, Venkatesh Nayak contends that the department acquired this information as part of its governmental duties, rather than through personal trust – thus, 8(1)(e) is not applicable. These services are intended for public provision, and the spectrum is a public asset – therefore, the licenses and conditions granted to the companies ought to be transparent.
He characterised the department's response as a 'breach of the law' and asserted, “According to Section 4(1)(b) (xiii) of the RTI Act, it is the obligation of the government to disclose the license and permission documents. The Supreme Court has also clarified in the RBI vs Jayantilal Mistry case that any information gathered by the government as part of its statutory duties is not fiduciary.”
On the matter, the Reserve Bank of India had argued that the information it gathers from banks is under a fiduciary relationship, thus cannot be disclosed.
The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating, “If any department collects applications or information from companies in accordance with the law, it does not fall under the definition of private trust (fiduciary relationship). It should be accessible to the public.”
So, it can be concluded that the DoT has attempted to evade transparency by misapplying the provisions of the RTI. The permissions granted by the DoT pertain to a public resource (spectrum), the services of which are to be provided to the general public.
The Wire Hindi sent emails to Neeraj Mittal, the Secretary of the DoT, and Hemendra Kumar Sharma, the deputy director general of the media division, regarding inquiries that remained unanswered through RTI, along with several supplementary questions. However, no response has been received so far.
This article was first published in The Wire Hindi.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
