Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001
•
central to democratisation via promoting Indic languages. Additionally, this must not be limitedly seen from the lens of opportunism. The Indian state is responsible to ensure that access to governance institutions becomes possible. Or else the enforcement machinations would contravene the intelligible considerations for anyone to even understand what economic and social rights under the Part III of the Indian Constitution they have and how they can, under pragmatically derivable indigenous constructs, can be enforced. How it is done also, is not an act of liability but of precision and due care. The relationship of any technology asset with relevant stakeholders in public law would change and transform, based on the way the vulnerabilities develop. Hence, the risk-based approaches must be understood to prevent collateral damage per se as vulnerability to indigenous environments is estimated.
Decentralization and Pseudonymization of References of Action Related to First Principles Rights The question of enforcing first principles rights, often also considered as basic human rights is taken aback, with a sense of conventional sentimentality, or misguided sensitivity. Or often the structure of enforcement is either heavily centralised, or discretely federalised, without clear policy estimates. The PIP formula suggested as before can be suitably applied even in this case as well to check how the Part III of the Indian Constitution can be constructively revisited, which does make proper sense after all. Since digital colonialism is the area of focus, we suggest the following: • There must be basic reforms in asserting rights-centrism at some practical level, because due to the exigencies of norms and biases which reenforce the post-colonial attributions of the Indian state, by its own ineptness, causing severe or limited or even minimal yet significant disregard of the fundamental rights or other legal rights of individuals and companies, must be avoided. Hence, some approaches, which are practical enough to be considered as objective in legal policy, must be reformed gradually.
117
