"Administrative allocation of satellite spectrum balances efficiency with equity but invites allegations of favouritism." Critically examine this in light of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

Under Section 4 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, spectrum is assigned by auction by default. Services listed in the First Schedule, which include satellite services, are assigned by administrative process instead [1]. This choice can be defended on grounds of efficiency and equity. However, because it relies on discretion, it is open to charges of favouritism, as the recent Starlink–Jio row shows.

Efficiency gains

• Shared spectrum: Low-earth-orbit constellations use the same bands at the same time, so auctioning exclusive blocks does not suit them. The Act allows administrative assignment where auction is "not the preferred mode" for technical or economic reasons [1].
• Lower entry cost: TRAI recommended 4% of AGR as the charge, with no upfront fee and a five-year tenure [2]. This keeps companies' capital from being locked up in auction bids.
• Legal backing: In the Natural Resources Allocation Reference (2012), the Supreme Court held that auction is not a constitutional mandate. It said the "common good" under Article 39(b) is the guiding test [4].

Equity gains

• Last-mile reach: Satcom can cover hilly, island and border areas where BharatNet fibre is too costly to lay. It can also keep people connected during disasters [5].
• Pricing that favours rural users: TRAI proposed ₹500 per urban subscriber and no such charge for rural users [2].

Why allegations of favouritism arise

• No price discovery: The 2G case showed that allocating spectrum without an auction can be abused. Incumbent telecom firms paid heavily at auctions, which is why DoT asked TRAI for a level playing field with terrestrial services [3].
• Slow, opaque decisions: In November 2025, DoT sent part of TRAI's recommendations back for reconsideration [3], and pricing has still not been finalised. Musk alleges that Ambani is using his influence to shield Jio before its IPO [5].
• Conflict of interest: Jio is both the dominant mobile operator and a satcom licensee [5].

Assessment The allegation is weaker than it sounds. Starlink sought the administrative route, which incumbent operators had resisted. The government also says Starlink, OneWeb and Jio Satellite are all at the same stage [5]. The main holdups are security and FDI clearances, not how spectrum is allocated.

In short, administrative allocation is a reasonable choice for spectrum that is shared and needed in remote areas, but it needs safeguards. The government should:

• set fixed timelines for finalising pricing and security checks;
• publish the reasoning exchanged between TRAI and DoT;
• leave monopoly complaints to the CCI.

These steps would keep discretion consistent with Article 14 and help meet SDG 9.c on universal internet access.