A little eHelp from our judicious friends

Digital access is inarguably a component of the fundamental right to life. But enforcing it will require a nuanced approach over availability and affordability. As things stand now, Wednesday's Supreme Court verdict will address denial of the right when it's accessible. Lawmakers will have to incorporate digital access into the statutes to ensure universal availability. GoI will have to tweak policy to make it universally affordable. This has implications on the market dynamics of, among others, the telecom industry that provides the backbone for digital services in the country. A close analogy is the electricity industry, which has morphed from a regular service to an essential one, and eventually to a legal entitlement. The transition has not been smooth in the power sector. Telecom could face some upheaval as well.

The need to make inexpensive telecom services ubiquitous will require a revaluation of how India goes about rolling out cellular networks. Current policy favours GoI recovering spectrum costs upfront - and sharing revenues as telecom networks expand - which slows growth of the digital economy. A greater sense of urgency to grow telecom networks will also shape technology preferences among terrestrial and satellite communications. Finally, it reinforces the role of the state in addressing market imperfections that lead to areas being underserved.

These changes will take time. But the interpretation of digital access as a fundamental right ought to speed up things. The economy has a deep digital divide. But efforts to bridge it should avoid capital infusion being held to ransom by politics of entitlement, as in the power sector. Fortunately, telecom technology is advancing rapidly, which brings down costs and broadens markets, thereby serving accessibility. The landmark ruling helps by focusing on the intent of the legislative and policy establishment. The legal interpretation stretches both market and state capacity on digital services, and could be criticised as judicial overreach. But such a conclusion would be misplaced.