For most of the last two decades, sector regulation in India was a discipline that lived inside a single function. Banks worried about the RBI. Listed companies worried about SEBI. Insurers worried about IRDAI. Each regulator had its own perimeter, its own circular series, and its own examination cadence. A compliance head could, with effort, hold the full map in their head. That world is over.
The new compliance perimeter is defined by overlap, not by jurisdiction. A payments business is now simultaneously read by the RBI on licensing, by MeitY on intermediary rules, by CERT-In on incident reporting, by the Data Protection Board on personal data, by the Competition Commission on platform conduct, and by the Income Tax authorities on digital transaction reporting, and each of these regulators is increasingly aware of what the others are doing. The same data set is examined by multiple readers. The same incident triggers multiple notification clocks. The same policy decision invites scrutiny from regulators who, a decade ago, would not have read each other's filings.
This has a specific operational consequence: regulator engagement can no longer be sequential. A breach that is disclosed to CERT-In on day one, to a sectoral regulator on day three, and to the Data Protection Board on day seven is a breach whose disclosures will be compared. Inconsistencies that would once have been invisible are now structural risks. The narrative that a CISO writes for the technical regulator must be the same narrative the General Counsel writes for the sectoral regulator and the Communications Lead writes for the public. Coordination is no longer a nicety. It is the substance of the defence.
The boards we advise have responded in three ways. The first, and most common, is to do nothing, to assume that the existing compliance function will absorb the new load. It will not. Compliance teams structured for one regulator cannot, by simply adding headcount, become capable of coordinated engagement across five. The second response is to build a regulatory affairs function, separate from compliance, whose job is precisely the coordination problem. This is the right answer for enterprises of scale, but it is expensive and slow to mature. The third response, and the one we increasingly recommend for mid-cap and GCC clients, is to retain external counsel whose entire practice is the coordination problem, on a managed-services basis. The economics are favourable because the coordination work is not constant; it is episodic and high-stakes.
What does coordinated engagement actually look like in practice? It begins with a single internal record of regulator interaction, every filing, every notification, every informal conversation, in one place. It continues with a single approved narrative for each material issue, agreed before any regulator is engaged. It ends with a post-engagement review that captures what each regulator asked, what was said, and what commitments were made, so that the next engagement does not contradict the last one. None of this is exotic. All of it requires deliberate design.
The firms that get this right in 2026 and 2027 will have a structural advantage over those that do not. Coordinated regulator engagement is becoming, quietly, one of the most consequential capabilities an Indian enterprise can build, and one of the hardest to build retrospectively, after the first inconsistent filing has been made.
Privileged commentary · Not legal advice · © Zuber & Partners