Parl panel to examine satellite internet services: Nishikant Dubey amid Starlink row

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey, chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on communications and information technology, on Wednesday said that the panel has selected satellite internet services for detailed examination amid the ongoing dispute over Elon Musk’s Starlink and delay in its commercial launch in India.

“We will discuss the satellite net issue at our meeting in the coming days,” Dubey told news agency PTI after a meeting of the panel.

The decision comes amid a public dispute between Musk and the Indian government over Starlink’s entry into the country. Musk accused Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani of running a monopoly, shutting out Starlink— a satellite internet provider. Dubey on Monday responded to Elon Musk, saying India does not change its security policy under “pressure”.

The row has also raised questions about national security and regulatory standards, with the government maintaining that satellite internet operators must meet security and regulatory requirements before launching services in India.

Also Read: ‘Starlink poses security challenges’: BJP’s Nishikant Dubey hits out at Elon Musk as row escalates

Starlink, Reliance Jio’s satellite venture Jio Satcom and Bharti-backed Eutelsat OneWeb have applied for permission to launch satellite internet services in India. Bharti operates Airtel’s pan-India mobile and internet network.

Court directs Mahua Moitra to delete posts

In a separate development, Dubey shared a court order directing Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra to delete two posts on X referring to the plaintiff as “vote chor” and accusing him of being responsible for the disenfranchisement of voters.

“The Defendant shall delete the first post dated October 3 and the second post dated October 6 from her X account “@MahuaMoitra” within 24 hours of receiving this order, including receipt by email,” the order said.

The order restrained Mahua Moitra from publishing or sharing allegedly defamatory statements against Dubey, including claims that he was a “vote chor”, had “committed every illegality”, was “singularly responsible” for illegally disenfranchising voters or had acted at the behest of a “maalik”.

The interim order further clarified that it does not prevent fair criticism of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) or official decisions.

The court also allowed Moitra to file a written objection and clarified that its observations are based on a prima facie assessment for the interim application, rather than a final determination of the dispute.

The order further provided that if Moitra does not comply with the direction to delete the posts, Dubey could approach X’s grievance officer under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.