Cross-border restrictions against foreign travel; Too many third-party motor accident claims; Are all regulators equal?; Siddharth Raman; IIHS University

In the article LRS, TCS and Overseas Travel: A Policy Design Critique, published on The Leap Blog, Anirudh Burman looks at the “Tax Collection at Source” collision between the Indian policy philosophy on autarky and the Indian policy philosophy on taxation.

The problems come together with outward remittances and overseas tour packages. The current framework introduces significant economic frictions and regulatory uncertainty due to frequent changes in tax rates, thresholds, and definitions since 2020. These upfront levies impose a cost to society — avoidable liquidity constraints and disproportionate compliance costs on individuals — in return for no clearly stated policy objective. While recent proposals to reduce certain rates are a positive step, the underlying instrument design remains flawed and hinders the global economic integration of Indian households.

In the article The MACT Litigation Overload: How India’s Regulatory Trifecta Forces Cases into Court, authors Siddarth Raman and Maya Ramesh analyze the structural causes behind the million-plus pending motor accident claims in India. They argue that the current regulatory framework — characterized by mandatory insurance, fixed premiums, and uncapped liability — disrupts the economic foundations of the insurance market. The rules create misaligned incentives where insurers are encouraged to delay payments and claimants are motivated to pursue litigation for higher awards, resulting in cases that often exceed a decade in duration. The path to reform lies in shifting toward risk-based pricing and a capped liability schedule to reduce the burden on the judiciary and improve outcomes for victims.

In their article Are all regulators equal? The Supreme Court doesn’t think so, published on The Leap Blog, Chitrakshi Jain and Bhavin Patel analyse recent Indian Supreme Court decisions that differentiate between the functions and appellate rights of various sectoral regulators. The authors examine how inconsistent judicial interpretations of “quasi-judicial” versus “regulatory” functions create legal uncertainty, specifically regarding the ability of bodies like the Electricity Regulatory Commissions to appeal adverse tribunal orders. They find that this ad hoc approach leads to arbitrary distinctions between regulators, undermines expert autonomy in tariff determination, and violates principles of separation of powers. This work highlights the urgent need for better laws that determine how regulators work, e.g. the 140 sections of the draft Indian Financial Code.

Siddharth Raman got an author page on The Leap Blog.

IIHS University has opened applications for five interdisciplinary Masters programs and a PhD track.