Why India Needs a Better Policy Graveyard: Lessons from the IT Act, 2000
The policy lifecycle doesn’t end with enactment. As digital harms evolve, India must build institutional muscle for policy termination before outdated laws create new risks
View as PDF
Ranjana Kushwaha, Jawaharlal Nehru University | Institute for Governance, Policies and Politics
SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure | SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Institutions: Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology | Ministry of Law and Justice
More than seven years after the Supreme Court struck it down, Section 66A of the Information technology (IT) Act was still being invoked by local authorities. This persistence of a repealed provision wasn’t just a procedural oversight, it reflected a broader policy design challenge: how to end laws when they no longer serve their purpose.
India’s legislative and regulatory focus has understandably prioritised innovation, delivery, and scale. But as technologies evolve, and as societies change, so too must the frameworks that govern them. The Information Technology Act, 2000, enacted at the dawn of India’s internet era, offered important protections and infrastructure for a fledgling digital economy. Over time, however, it struggled to keep pace with the scale and complexity of digital transformation.
Moving Beyond Enactment and Amendment
The IT Act was initially designed to support e-commerce and basic cybersecurity. As the internet matured, it was adapted: amendments in 2008, the introduction of intermediary guidelines, and successive IT Rules aimed to address new risks. Yet its core architecture remained anchored in a very different digital world.
With the rise of artificial intelligence, deepfakes, algorithmic amplification, and globalised data flows, the Act’s limits became increasingly evident. Its provisions grew into a patchwork, and implementation became uneven. Institutional mechanisms like CERT-In took on expanded roles, but without sufficient legislative support or clear accountability pathways. What began as a forward-looking law eventually became a constraint.
Policy Termination as Institutional Strength
Across the world, mature policy ecosystems recognise that ending a law or programme is not a sign of failure, it is a mark of responsiveness. Public policies are not static artefacts; they must evolve or make way for better alternatives.
Political scientist Peter DeLeon noted that policy termination and evaluation are inseparable; without the former, the latter often lacks consequence. In India, however, most laws and programmes persist until overridden by political will, judicial intervention, or public outcry. Routine institutional checks on relevance and efficacy are rare.
The proposed replacement of the IT Act with the Digital India Act is a positive step. But it should also encourage reflection on why a major policy tool remained unrevised for so long, despite shifting realities and mounting critique.
Rethinking Evaluation and Lifecycle Governance
India’s policymaking ecosystem has strong traditions of consultation, evidence-building, and delivery focus. The next frontier is lifecycle governance which embeds processes that ensure laws are periodically reviewed not just for performance, but for continued relevance.
Evaluation should go beyond asking “Did it meet its goals?” to also ask “Are these still the right goals?” and “Is this still the best tool?”. A policy may have been effective when designed but misaligned with present-day challenges. In such cases, timely retirement and redirection represent good governance, not backtracking.
Importantly, termination should not be seen as disruption. With appropriate planning, stakeholder consultation, and transitional safeguards, it can enable smoother policy evolution.
Designing for Adaptability and Exit
Other countries offer useful models. Canada embeds review clauses in major legislation. The UK Law Commission periodically clears out obsolete laws through formal repeal recommendations. In the US, audit institutions flag programmes that are duplicative or outdated.
India could institutionalise similar mechanisms. New laws, especially those dealing with rapidly evolving sectors like technology, can include built-in review timelines or sunset clauses. A cross-ministerial policy review body could be tasked with identifying outdated legislation. Ministries might be encouraged to publish evaluation reports that reflect on the case for continuation, reform, or termination.
These are low-cost, high-impact institutional tools. They support transparency, cut regulatory clutter, and improve public trust in policymaking.
From Policy Persistence to Policy Renewal
India has made great strides in designing and implementing ambitious policy frameworks. The proposed Digital India Act reflects the government’s willingness to respond to new challenges in a complex digital age. But this responsiveness must also extend to recognising when laws should be retired.
A culture of thoughtful policy closure, backed by robust evaluation and forward-looking design, would help future-proof governance in a fast-changing world. Ending a law at the right time is not an admission of error. It is a signal that institutions are working as they should.
To build lasting, responsive policy systems, we must treat termination not as a last resort, but as a legitimate and sometimes necessary stage in the lifecycle of good governance.
View as PDF
Author:
Ranjana Kushwaha is a research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, and a Policy Research Consultant at the Institute for Governance, Policies and Politics. Views are personal.