#FactCheck-Old Video of Ira Khan’s Wedding Falsely Linked to Aamir Khan’s Third Marriage

Introduction
‍

India’s data centre sector is rapidly emerging as strategic national infrastructure at the centre of the country’s AI ambitions, fuelled by a combination of technological advancements and the global political economy. Estimates suggest that national data centre capacity is expected to rise from 1.2 GW in 2025 to almost 8 GW by 2030. With a funding of ₹10,372 crore, the IndiaAI Mission aims to establish domestic compute power and expand GPU infrastructure throughout the nation. Simultaneously, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 has introduced a form of “soft localisation,” empowering the government to mandate domestic storage for sensitive categories of data.

Together, this push for infrastructure aims to transform India from a passive data market into an active shaper of global data flows. Yet India’s current policy model differs significantly from the approaches being adopted in other major digital economies. A comparison with Singapore and the European Union reveals that while India is focused on aggressive data centre expansion, other jurisdictions are increasingly prioritising sustainability, efficiency, and digital sovereignty.

This raises a critical policy question: can India scale its AI infrastructure ambitions while accounting for the governance and resource challenges that other markets are now attempting to correct?
‍

India’s Incentive-Led AI Infrastructure Push
‍

India’s current approach to data centre expansion is fundamentally facilitative. The state is acting as an enabler of rapid private investment through fiscal incentives and infrastructure prioritisation.

The Union Budget 2022 had classified data centres as “infrastructure,” which enables developers to access cheaper institutional financing and long-term capital. The Union Budget 2026 further introduced tax holidays for foreign cloud providers using Indian facilities for global operations. At the state level, governments such as Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh are aggressively competing to attract hyperscale investments through electricity duty exemptions, expedited approvals, and “essential service” status designed to guarantee uninterrupted operations.

This approach reflects India’s broader strategic positioning. As global demand for AI compute accelerates, India seeks to establish itself not only as a major digital market, but as a sovereign compute hub for the Global South.

The IndiaAI Mission demonstrates this ambition clearly. By seeking to scale domestic GPU capacity to 100,000 units, the government is recognising that compute infrastructure is increasingly becoming geopolitically strategic. AI leadership will now depend on the ability to control and secure the physical infrastructure powering advanced AI systems.

However, while India’s policy framework strongly incentivises capacity creation, it remains relatively underdeveloped in areas such as sustainability benchmarks, resource management, and operational accountability.
‍

Singapore and the European Union: Governance After Scale
‍

Singapore and the European Union offer models of digital infrastructure governance as rapid infrastructure growth starts to raise resource and sovereignty issues.

With the limited energy resources and land at its disposal, Singapore has shifted from unrestricted data centre growth to a tightly managed sustainability-first model. Through the Data Centre Call for Application (DC-CFA) framework, only projects meeting strict efficiency and economic value criteria are approved. For instance, new facilities are expected to maintain Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) levels of 1.3 or lower and submit detailed water efficiency plans to comply with advanced environmental standards. The country has also developed tropical cooling standards that allow facilities to run at higher ambient temperatures, reducing cooling energy consumption significantly. Rather than uninhibited growth, Singapore is now geared towards growth efficiency.

The European Union, on the other hand, is pursuing a sovereignty-oriented governance model in response to geopolitical pressures. However, it is still introducing energy reporting requirements and waste heat recovery rules into digital infrastructure rules through the revised Energy Efficiency Directive and proposed EU Cloud and AI Development Act. Simultaneously, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) is being used to investigate hyperscale cloud providers for potential “gatekeeper” behaviour, reflecting concerns about excessive concentration of digital infrastructure power in the hands of a few non-European firms. This approach shows that sovereignty and energy efficiency can go hand-in-hand.

These models illustrate an important trend: digital infrastructure governance is shifting from the promotion of investment to sustainability, competition regulation and strategic autonomy.
‍

India’s Emerging Governance Challenge
‍

India’s current trajectory and global geopolitical tensions suggest that pressures regarding sustainability and sovereignty are set to intensify over the next decade.

AI infrastructure is resource-intensive by design. For example, a single modern AI server rack can consume up to 250 kilowatts (kW) of power, compared to a traditional enterprise server rack which typically requires only 15 kW. Despite the use of water use effectiveness (WUE) technologies, the sheer volume of heat transfer means that AI data centres can still put immense pressure on local water resources, especially in warmer climates. These figures juxtaposed against hyperscale clusters mean the volumes of electricity, cooling systems, land, water, and high-density compute rise by significant orders of magnitude.  Yet most Indian policies remain overwhelmingly focused on fiscal incentives rather than long-term resource governance.

This creates the risk of a reactive policy cycle in which sustainability standards are introduced only after resource pressures become acute. Urban concentration, grid stress, water scarcity, and energy reliability may eventually force abrupt regulatory interventions which can lead to higher compliance costs and uncertainty in operations.

At the same time, India’s push for sovereign AI infrastructure also raises broader questions around digital sovereignty and institutional capacity. Procuring GPUs alone does not create an AI ecosystem. Secure hosting environments, skilled infrastructure personnel, cybersecurity preparedness, and interoperable governance mechanisms are equally essential.

This makes workforce development a strategic human resource development issue rather than simply an industrial challenge. Without sufficient thermal engineers, cybersecurity professionals, and digital infrastructure specialists, India’s infrastructure ambitions may struggle to translate into long-term resilience.
‍

Building Governance into the Expansion Phase
‍

India’s current “pre-regulatory” moment also presents a significant opportunity. Because the sector is still evolving, both policymakers and infrastructure actors have the ability to shape governance standards before constraints become restrictive.

It is vital to establishing national sustainability benchmarks through public-private technical partnerships, possibly under the aegis of of NITI Aayog, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) and MeitY, before the next resource pressures dictate reactive regulation. Pilot “sustainability sandboxes” focused on liquid immersion cooling, renewable integration, battery energy storage systems, and water-efficient operations could help create evidence-based policy frameworks tailored to Indian conditions. Similarly, Likewise, collaborations with skilling institutions like NSDC and NIELIT can contribute to the development of dedicated digital infrastructure academies for thermal engineering, cybersecurity, and AI infrastructure management.

This would support India to progress towards a sovereign AI infrastructure stack, bringing together compute capacity, sustainability, capacity building and governance resilience into a seamless ecosystem.
‍

Conclusion
‍

With AI systems become increasingly utilised in finance, healthcare, governance, and public services, the infrastructure ecosystem supporting them will become equally politically and strategically significant. The choices India makes today to operationalise sustainability, skilling, competition, and sovereign compute capacity will shape the foundations of its future AI economy.

The central challenge is no longer whether India can become a major AI infrastructure hub. It is whether the country can transition from an incentive-led expansion model toward a governance framework that balances scale with sustainability, sovereignty, democratic accountability, and long-term resilience.

That transition may ultimately define the success of India’s AI century.
‍

References
‍

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/economic-survey-indias-data-centre-capacity-to-reach-about-8-gw-by-2030/article70566326.ece

https://indiaai.gov.in/news/cabinet-approves-india-ai-mission-at-an-outlay-of-rs-10-372-crore

https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/cross-border-data-transfers-and-data-localization-mandate-under-the-data-protection-regime/

https://www.sttelemediagdc.com/in-en/resources/what-does-infrastructure-status-mean-data-centre-industry

https://www.midcindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IT-ITES_Policy_2015.pdf

https://uplc.up.gov.in/en/page/uttar-pradesh-data-center-policy

https://www.imda.gov.sg/resources/press-releases-factsheets-and-speeches/press-releases/2025/sg-it-energy-efficiency-standard-for-data-centres-launched

‍

Introduction

On March 12, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) proposed the Bill to curb anti-competitive practices of tech giants through ex-ante regulation. The Draft Digital Competition Bill is to apply to ‘Core Digital Services,’ with the Central Government having the authority to update the list periodically. The proposed list in the Bill encompasses online search engines, online social networking services, video-sharing platforms, interpersonal communications services, operating systems, web browsers, cloud services, advertising services, and online intermediation services. 

The primary highlight of the Digital Competition Law Report created by the Committee on Digital Competition Law presented to the Parliament in the 2nd week of March 2024 involves a recommendation to introduce new legislation called the ‘Digital Competition Act,’ intended to strike a balance between certainty and flexibility. The report identified ten anti-competitive practices relevant to digital enterprises in India. These are anti-steering, platform neutrality/self-preferencing, bundling and tying, data usage (use of non-public data), pricing/ deep discounting, exclusive tie-ups, search and ranking preferencing, restricting third-party applications and finally advertising Policies.

Key Take-Aways: Digital Competition Bill, 2024

1. Qualitative and quantitative criteria for identifying Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises, if it meets any of the specified thresholds. 

• Financial thresholds in each of the immediately preceding three financial years like turnover in India, global turnover, gross merchandise value in India, or global market capitalization.
• User thresholds in each of the immediately preceding 3 financial years in India like the core digital service provided by the enterprise has at least 1 crore end users, or it has at least 10,000 business users.
• The Commission may make the designation based on other factors such as the size and resources of an enterprise, number of business or end users, market structure and size, scale and scope of activities of an enterprise and any other relevant factor.

2. A period of 90 days is provided to notify the CCI of qualification as an SSDE. Additionally, the enterprise must also notify the Commission of other enterprises within the group that are directly or indirectly involved in the provision of Core Digital Services, as Associate Digital Enterprises (ADE) and the qualification shall be for 3 years.
3. It prescribes obligations for SSDEs and their ADEs upon designation. The enterprise must comply with certain obligations regarding Core Digital Services, and non-compliance with the same shall result in penalties. Enterprises must not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the enterprise’s obligations under the Act. 
4. Avoidance of favouritism in product offerings by SSDE,  its related parties, or third parties for the manufacture and sale of products or provision of services over those offered by third-party business users on the Core Digital Service in any manner.
5. The Commission will be having the same powers as vested to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit.
6. Penalty for non-compliance without reasonable cause may extend to Rs 1 lakh for each day during which such non-compliance occurs (max. of Rs 10 crore). It may extend to 3 years or with a fine, which may extend to Rs 25 crore or with both. The Commission may also pass an order imposing a penalty on an enterprise (not exceeding 1% of the global turnover) in case it provides incorrect, incomplete, misleading information or fails to provide information. 

Suggestions and Recommendations

• The ex-ante model of regulation needs to be examined for the Indian scenario and studies need to be conducted on it has worked previously in different jurisdictions like the EU. 
• The Bill should be aimed at prioritising the fostering of fair competition by preventing monopolistic practices in digital markets exclusively. A clear distinction from the already existing Competition Act, 2002 in its functioning needs to be created so that there is no overlap in the regulations and double jeopardy is not created for enterprises.
• Restrictions on tying and bundling and data usage have been shown to negatively impact MSMEs that rely significantly on big tech to reduce operational costs and enhance customer outreach.
• Clear definitions of "dominant position" and "anti-competitive behaviour" are essential for effective enforcement in terms of digital competition need to be defined. 
• Encouraging innovation while safeguarding consumer data privacy in consonance with the DPDP Act should be the aim. Promoting interoperability and transparency in algorithms can prevent discriminatory practices. 
• Regular reviews and stakeholder consultations will ensure the law adapts to rapidly evolving technologies. 
• Collaboration with global antitrust bodies which is aimed at enhancing cross-border regulatory coherence and effectiveness.

Conclusion

The need for a competition law that is focused exclusively on Digital Enterprises is the need of the hour and hence the Committee recommended enacting the Digital Competition Act to enable CCI to selectively regulate large digital enterprises. The proposed legislation should be restricted to regulate only those enterprises that have a significant presence and ability to influence the Indian digital market. The impact of the law needs to be restrictive to digital enterprises and it should not encroach upon matters not influenced by the digital arena. India's proposed Digital Competition Bill aims to promote competition and fairness in the digital market by addressing anti-competitive practices and dominant position abuses prevalent in the digital business space. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has received 41-page public feedback on the draft which is expected to be tabled next year in front of the Parliament. 

References

1. https://www.medianama.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRAFT-DIGITAL-COMPETITION-BILL-2024.pdf
2. https://prsindia.org/files/policy/policy_committee_reports/Report_Summary-Digital_Competition_Law.pdf
3. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/meity-meets-india-inc-to-hear-out-digital-competition-law-concerns/articleshow/111091837.cms?from=mdr
4. https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=gzGtvSkE3zIVhAuBe2pbow%253D%253D&type=open
5. https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/digital-competition-laws-beginning-of-a-new-era
6. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/policy-explainer-digital-competition-bill-nimisha-srivastava-lhltc/
7. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5722a078-1839-4ece-aec9-49336ff53b6c

‍

Pretext

On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.  Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).

The Issue

Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –

• The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
• The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
• The market for general web search services in India
• The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
• The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.

Supreme Courts Opinion

In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.

Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.

‍

Conclusion

As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.