Blog post analysing the process through which Indian GECs are regulated, the problems that have arisen in the context, such as issues arising due to parallel regulatory mechanisms, and a discussion of the Comedy Central case to highlight them. The author also discusses the concept of the subjectivity of the findings, disagreeing with the court’s decision on the point.

Discusses the issues faced by existing attempts at regulation such as lack of clear enforcement objectives and the extent of ‘off the radar’ non-compliance and how regulators deal with them. Reviews the development of mainstream approaches to regulation, and the effect of ‘responsive regulation’ on that. Building on the same, proposes a new ‘really responsive regulation’, noting five more parameters to which regulators should be responsive to make a regulation ‘really responsive’.

Traces the history of how the public’s and the press’ opinion of the regulators changed from the seventies and eighties, and why they are almost uniformly hated. Uses the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as an example of poor regulation, and traces the reasons for why it was a difficult regulation to design in the first place. Points out the difficulties in assessing whether a regulation is a good regulation or not, even by BRTF’s standards. Further notes some factors that have been suggested as important for assessment by the work by LSE CARR.