Sheetal Vasundhara & Viswajeet Chaudhary
Introduction
“The question to ask is whether the risk of travelling to space is worth the benefit. The answer is an unequivocal yes, but not only for the reasons usually touted by the space community: the need to explore, the scientific return, and the possibility of commercial profit. The most compelling reason, a very long-term one, is the necessity of using space to protect Earth and guarantee the survival of humanity.”[1]
Space is no longer just a final frontier; it is becoming the next marketplace. Outer space was, for many decades, a government monopoly regulated by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which set down the norms of peaceful use, equal access, and cooperation. In India, it was the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) that had the responsibility, which became the face of India’s ambitions in space. However, the world has changed. Operators such as SpaceX and Blue Origin have demonstrated how private players can redefine the industry. India also joined in on this change when the 2020 announcement by the Finance Minister ushered in private participation in space activity.[2] What used to be an exclusively sovereign sphere is now fast emerging as a commercial innovation, enterprise, and investment ecosystem. This transition brings immense promise: opportunity for startups, technological breakthroughs, regulatory gaps, and risks of market dominance. For India, the pressing task is to strike the right balance, encouraging private sector growth while ensuring fair competition and preventing the misuse of market power.
Commercialisation of Space In India
From ISRO’s Monopoly to Private Participation:
For decades, India’s space journey was driven almost entirely by ISRO[3], which carried the responsibility of research, development, and deployment of satellites, launch vehicles, and related technologies. ISRO alone could not handle India’s growing space needs, so the same organisation needed more support to meet the expanding demand. This led to private companies coming up, and we see them playing a significant role in making India’s space sector commercial. The sector is only shifting from government control to a competitive market.
Democratisation of the Space Sector:
In India, since their establishment in 1969, the ISRO has maintained its historical hegemony in the space sector. ISRO, with its wide and large infrastructure, is the sole entity responsible for space missions, satellite launches, testing facilities, etc. This wide array of logistical support, large budget and data control has made ISRO a dominant player in the space ecosystem of India. Such dominance by a single entity is no good for new entrants like Agnikul Cosmos, Skyroot Aerospace, Pixxel, etc, who are entering the space sector of India. In an interview with Srinath Ravichandran, COO & Co-founder, Agnikul Cosmos’ in 2023, he pointed out about the increasing competition in the market with players like Skyroot Aerospace and ISRO’s commercial SSLV.[4] Thus, there is an evident need to democratise the space sector in order to make it more accessible and affordable. Such a need could only be accomplished with direct support from the government in terms of financial support and technological requirements, and by liberalising the dominance of ISRO.
Commercialisation through Antrix, NSIL, and IN-Space:
To bridge this gap, the government opened the sector to private participation and set up new institutions. Antrix Corporation, established in 1992, became ISRO’s first commercial arm, facilitating the commercialisation of ISRO’s technologies and services. This was followed by establishing NewSpace India Limited (NSIL) in 2019, which was tasked with scaling up commercialisation efforts. In 2020, IN-SPACe was launched as a single window agency to encourage and regulate private involvement.[5] ISpA was formed to represent and advocate for private space players. India’s space sector is changing as institutions promote private involvement.[6] This evolution has opened the way for new companies like Skyroot Aerospace, Agnikul Cosmos, Pixxel, and Bellatrix Aerospace to work on domestically made rockets, satellites, and advanced space technologies. The Indian space sector is undergoing a tremendous revolution, as potential changes planned by foreign direct investment (FDI) policies shall entice higher foreign investments. With the introduction of the Space Activities Bill[7] and the Indian Space Policy.[8] The focus is on regulating and promoting space activities.
This transformation moves the sector from government control to a competitive marketplace, where private players drive innovation and investment. It creates an environment where startups can flourish and significantly contribute to India’s growing space ecosystem.
Global Experiences and Indian Takeaways
As India opens its door to private enterprises in its space economy, experiences worldwide provide useful insights into the advantages of balancing competition, innovation, and strategic interest in the space economy. Learning from these global experiences will assist India in avoiding the same missteps as other countries and create a vibrant, equitable, and competitive ecosystem for space.
The United States: Lessons on Consolidation and Disruption:
In 2006, Boeing and Lockheed Martin merged to form the United Launch Alliance (ULA), the exclusive provider of medium- and heavy-lift launch services for U.S. Government payloads. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved the merger against conditions to protect proprietary information and permit other firms to compete. Despite these efforts, the market did not become competitive until the end of the decade when SpaceX entered and disrupted the market.[9]
The U.S. experience shows that even if mergers can be justified for national security or efficiency, they can reduce competition. In the case of India, boards and executives need to take care that they do not create a structure that concentrates too much control either through ISRO or its new commercial subsidiaries which will likely a market impact far more significant than monopolizing experience in the U.S. Without open access to launch platforms, transparent bidding processes, and equal treatment of private providers, market competition cannot be fostered in a manner that balances competition with strategic interest.
Europe: Balancing Strong Players with Oversight:
In 2016, the European Commission assessed the merger between Airbus Safran Launchers and Arianespace.[10] The Commission considered that there were some risks, like sharing commercially sensitive information and exclusion of rival satellite manufacturers. The Commission only accepted the merger when the parties placed satisfactory measures into place, such as information firewalls and commitments to non-discriminatory access. This case illustrates that domestic strength and competition law can coexist when an adequate oversight mechanism is present. India should emphasize that public-private partnerships welcome competition and collaboration without unfair coordination or preferential treatment. Clear rules and independent stewardship should allow India to repeat this balance.
China: Accelerated Improvement with State Directing:
China’s space industry is largely dominated by several large state-owned enterprises, such as China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC).[11] The government signals its preferences, promotes coordination, and discourages excessive competition. This has sped rapid technological advances but also provides limited opportunities for privately held firms and effectively eliminates competitive pressures that yield sustainable innovation. India should not follow China’s practices. The role of the state should focus on regulating government expenditure and facilitating opportunities while refraining from competing in commercial markets, so there continue to be options for start-up or smaller firms to participate in these new opportunities.
Japan: Incremental Liberalisation with Oversight of Fair Competition:
Japan provides an example of gradual liberalisation in its space industry. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) continues to lead the sector but not discourage private start-ups, such as iSpace and Interstellar Technologies, from being part of the industry.[12] The Japan Fair Trade Commission looks for similar provisions which is a very effective oversight mechanism to understand and ensure that competition is not restrained among private firms and within the commercial markets. This demonstrates that innovation can be secured and sustained under a clear and equitable set of regulations. India can pursue a similar oversight approach to private firms’ involvement by allowing firms to use ISRO’s infrastructure and grow their capabilities, along with rigorous oversight capacity from the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
Safeguarding India’s Future in Space:
Three main lessons arise from these jurisdictions: Prevent monopolies: Concentration of power, whether public or private, is deleterious to innovation and efficiency. Encourage transparent and open access: Sufficient protection for all players will promote competition and market development. Independence is key- independent reviews of public-private partnerships and joint ventures is necessary to guard against exclusionary behavior. By encompassing these principles into the developing regime of IN-SPACE, NSIL, and other institutions, India can develop a space economy that is innovative, inclusive, and competitive with the rest of the world. Competition and strategic national interests aren’t mutually exclusive; they can, with appropriate safeguards, reinforce each other.
For India, antitrust law is not about slowing down the sector but keeping it fair. Further, it ensures ISRO’s facilities are open to everyone and stops unfair partnerships, creating opportunities for startups and small businesses to grow in the space sector. The contribution of antitrust law towards fair play in competition is a ray of hope for India’s space industry’s future and an essential factor towards achieving the Atmanirbhar Bharat vision.[13]
Benefits of intense competition in India’s space sector
By keeping the market fair and preventing dominance, antitrust measures enable innovation, efficiency, and fair play, all of which are the core goals of a competitive space economy. The ULA-SpaceX situation in the U.S. teaches, a private sector teaches us a valuable lesson about monopolies and shows that they can really weigh down governments with hefty costs.[14] On the other hand, when new players enter the market, they often drive prices down and improve services.
Startups Driving Innovation
In India, we observe startups such as Skyroot, Agnikul, and Pixxel coming up with out-of-the-box concepts and agile approaches that go hand-in-hand with ISRO, building a more diverse and creative ecosystem. Competition also hardens resilience.
As space increasingly leans on digital infrastructure, there are risky dependencies with little accountability for governments to govern their satellite constellation or those of the cloud services. Antitrust protections formally guarantee that one player does not dominate the service delivery space, so a need for a diversified approach that meets with players able to access recyclable components on a level playing field.
This is healthy for India, an inclusive space economy where innovation thrives, opportunities are shared across startups and MSMEs, and the country can build global competitiveness without relying on just a few big entities. The importance of global competitiveness in shaping India’s space sector is a motivating and inspiring factor, making the audience feel inspired and motivated.
Challenges in applying competition law to space
India’s developing space sector is currently grappling with numerous challenges regarding applying competition law in light of its international commitments, domestic regulation, and the exceptional features of the sector.
Absence of International Consensus:
There is currently no international consensus to regulate private actors involved in space endeavours, which presents complications from a competition law perspective and a regulatory gap. The Outer Space Treaty[15] (OST) stipulates that a state is liable for the actions of its national space activities. Nonetheless, there are no ‘substantive’ antitrust provisions within the treaty; it will be left for India to apply its own national laws, including the Competition Act, 2002[16], which has no equivalents outside its borders.
High Entry Barriers and Market Concentration:
Secondly, high capital investment and technological development generate high entry barriers, giving rise to natural market concentration. As concentration escalates, the likelihood of monopolistic exertion of power rises in places where the state already possesses unowned instruments, such as the scorecard of ISRO, whose knowledge lies unknown in the existing technologies startup sector. Competition regulators like the CCI must trade efficiency benefits from joint ventures and collaborative actions with diminished competition and the threat of market foreclosure.
Risks due to Consolidation and Joint Ventures:
Third, international joint venture experience, such as the Lockheed Martin-Boeing joint venture, demonstrates the difficulty of evading anti-competitive outcomes in review proceedings. [17]The rising Indian private space sector also requires equal vigilance to avoid innovation being stifled or new entrants being shut out by consolidation.
Fragmented International Guidance:
Finally, international guidance from UNCTAD[18] and the OECD[19] though helpful in defining anti-competitive practices, it remains non-binding and challenging to enforce. Combined with Article IX[20] of the OST, which encourages cooperation but could be misused to justify collusion, Indian regulators face a dual challenge: adapting domestic competition laws to a specialised, capital-intensive sector while managing fragmented international obligations.[21]
In conclusion, as the antitrust framework develops in India, it should ensure access to innovative products and guard against monopolistic power. At the same time, explicitly engage more in international campaigns for a standard on whether the commercialisation of space, and authority for antitrust activities.
Policy recommendations for India
Strengthening Policy and Institutions:
India’s space industry requires robust policies to harmonise government-directed research with indigenous innovation. A National Space Policy needs to examine the roles of ISRO, private enterprises, and research establishments so that startups can commercialise technologies. Meanwhile, the government concentrates on high-end programs like human space exploration and Earth observation. Templates such as those of the Takshashila Institution present excellent advice. ISRO’s operational and business activities need to be de-merged. Govt.-funded infrastructures could be national assets that NSIL or Antrix could operate equitably, affording startups access on commercial terms. This could be an ideal opportunity for private enterprises while ISRO concentrates on high-end research.
Enabling a Fair and Innovative Ecosystem:
There is a need for very clear regulations. Several Space Sector enterprises are faced with licensing issues, issues of technology transfers, and controls by experts. Preparing industry workshops, providing constructive advice, and keeping open communication channels with regulators will help such entities cope with the regulations confidently. Soft law mechanisms, such as ethical guidelines, smart contracts, and trust structures, can also play a crucial role alongside existing laws to support a fair and innovative environment.[22]
Dynamic, consultative policies, updated with stakeholder input, will help India create a competitive, self-reliant space economy where innovation thrives, opportunities are shared, and private and public players work together to achieve global impact.
Conclusion
Space commercialisation constitutes a historical paradigm shift in human relations with the space cosmos. For India, the shift has immense potential and a glorious responsibility. A competitive space sector shall entail innovation, a strong industrial foundation, openings for new startups, and an enhanced international presence for India. However, such rewards are conditional and must be ensured through transparent rules that prevent the concentration of powers and guarantee fair play.
Traditionally, ISRO symbolised India’s national sovereignty over space activity due to exemption from the competition statute. However, with business enterprises gaining a foothold and government organisations entering commercial enterprises, such exceptions continue to pose the danger of distorting the markets. Simply put, procurement regimes will not secure against monopolistic tendencies or the consolidation of major players. Instead, India must proactively apply competition law to the space industry so that public or private players can compete on equal terms.
Antitrust law does not necessarily have to be regarded as an obstacle towards space ambitions, but rather as an engine that enables sustainable development. By providing the Competition Commission of India with the mandate to protect such an evolving ecosystem, India will ensure innovation while providing a fair playing field.
India also has the potential to influence international discourse utilisation governance in the years ahead. As new market opportunities range from satellite constellations to resource utilisation, the globe will seek paradigms that reconcile enterprise with fairness. An effective antitrust regime will make India a player in the new space economy and a pioneer in defining the stand-alone commercialisation and sustainable development. The destiny of space will be dictated not only by rockets but by rules.
Sheetal Vasundhara & Viswajeet Chaudhary are fourth-year students of B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
[1] William E Burrows, ‘Space and Civilisation’ The Wall Street Journal (New York, 3 February 2003) https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1044239185574792064 accessed 26 September 2025
[2] ‘Govt opens space sector for private players’ The Times of India (New Delhi, 16 May 2020) < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/govt-opens-space-sector-for-private-players/articleshow/75776586.cms > accessed 26 September 2025
[3] Indian Space Research Organisation, ‘Profile’ (ISRO, no date) <https://www.isro.gov.in/profile.html> accessed 22 September 2025.
[4] Akshay Datt, ‘From Wall Street to the Stars: The Srinath Ravichandran & AgniKul Cosmos Story’ (The Founder Thesis Podcast, 6 September 2023) https://www.founderthesis.com/p/launching-into-the-cosmos-agnikul accessed 24 September 2025
[5] Roles and Responsibilities, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) <https://www.isro.gov.in/Responsibilities.html> accessed 24 September 2025
[6] Press Information Bureau, ‘Unlocking the Space Sector – on the path to Atmanirbhar Bharat’ (3 November 2021) <https://www.pib.gov.in/FactsheetDetails.aspx?Id=148560> accessed 25 September 2025.
[7] Department of Space, Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017 (Government of India, November 2017) <https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/1970/Draft%20Space%20Activities%20Bill%202017.pdf> accessed 25 September 2025.
[8] Department of Space, Indian Space Policy 2023 (Government of India, 2023) <https://www.isro.gov.in/media_isro/pdf/IndianSpacePolicy2023.pdf> accessed 25 September 2025.
[9] Todd Wells, ‘Exploring the Space for Antitrust Law in the Race for Space Exploration’ (2016) 15 Wash U Global Stud L Rev 381 <https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol15/iss2/9> accessed 25 September 2025.
[10] Case M.7724 Airbus Safran Launchers/Arianespace [2017] OJ C 438/09
[11] State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (China), Guiding Opinions on Preventing Disorderly Competition Among Central Enterprises (2025).
[12] Japan Fair Trade Commission, Annual Report on Competition Policy (2023) < https://www.jftc.go.jp/ >accessed 27 September 2025.
[13] Press Information Bureau, ‘Unlocking the Space Sector – on the path to Atmanirbhar Bharat’ (3 November 2021) <https://www.pib.gov.in/FactsheetDetails.aspx?Id=148560> accessed 25 September 2025
[14] William E. Kovacic, ‘Competition Policy Retrospective: The Formation of the United Launch Alliance and the Ascent of SpaceX’ (2020) 27 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 863
[15] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (opened for signature 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205.
[16] Competition Act 2002
[17] In the Matter of Lockheed Martin Corp, the Boeing Co and United Launch Alliance LLC 51-0165, 2006 WL 2925257 (FTC, 3 October 2006)
[18] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Competition Issues in Space Activities (Report, UNCTAD 2021)
[19] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Competition Assessment in the Space Sector (Report, OECD 2020)
[20] Outer Space Treaty (opened for signature 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967), Art IX
[21] Open Lunar Foundation, ‘An Introduction to Space Antitrust’ (Open Lunar Foundation, 1 June 2021) <https://www.openlunar.org/blog/an-introduction-to-space-antitrust> accessed 23 September 2025
[22] Arup Dasgupta, ‘Lessons for India in Commercialisation of Space’ (Geospatial World, 16 May 2020) <https://geospatialworld.net/prime/business-and-industry-trends/lessons-for-india-in-commercialization-of-space/> accessed 26 September 2025
NUALS Law Journal 