The role of NewSpace India Limited (NSIL) in commercialising India's space sector has been questioned following back-to-back PSLV mission failures. Examine the governance architecture of India's space sector and suggest reforms to ensure mission reliability.

India's space sector rests on a four-body architecture — the Department of Space, ISRO (research and launch), NSIL (commerce) and IN-SPACe (authorisation) — formalised by the Indian Space Policy, 2023 [3]. The failure of PSLV-C62 (12 January 2026), coming after PSLV-C61/EOS-09 (18 May 2025) with both anomalies in the solid-fuelled third stage (PS3), tests whether this architecture separates promotion from assurance [1][2].

Governance architecture: strengths

• Functional separation: ISRO builds capability, NSIL — a Schedule 'A' company under the Department of Space since 2019 — monetises it, and IN-SPACe authorises private actors, ending ISRO's conflicted role as player and regulator [4][3].
• Demand-driven commercialisation: NSIL's mandate to run end-to-end commercial missions has expanded industry participation and drawn foreign customers [4].
• Accountability practice: ISRO constituted a Failure Analysis Committee promptly after C61, and its Chairman disclosed the C62 anomaly publicly the same day [2][1].

Weaknesses exposed

• No independent mission-assurance regulator: IN-SPACe promotes and supervises; PSLV quality control remains internal to ISRO, so a repeat PS3 anomaly went uncaught [3].
• Commercial cadence vs. rigour: a "one mission a month" target sits uneasily with unresolved root causes; C62 was itself the return-to-flight mission [2].
• Strategic cost: EOS-N1 was built for strategic purposes, so reliability lapses erode surveillance capacity, not merely revenue [1].

Reforms

• Create an independent mission-assurance authority, insulated from launch schedules, with power to clear each return-to-flight.
• Make failure-committee findings and closure actions publicly reportable, as with aviation accident inquiries.
• Institutionalise third-stage requalification and supplier audits across the private component chain before resuming cadence.

Two failures in a workhorse with over sixty successes reflect a governance gap, not technological decline. Aligning NSIL's commercial ambition with an empowered assurance function — and letting reliability, not the calendar, set launch dates — would restore confidence in India's bid to be a trusted global launch provider.