Introduction
India has produced one of the most radical public digital infrastructures in the global financial ecosystem in the Unified Payments Interface (“UPI”). Incorporating interoperability and real-time payments, UPI has not only fundamentally redefined how people and businesses operate but also led to a major promotion of financial inclusion and digitisation. What started out as a means of making bank-bank transfer easier has grown to be the infrastructure of daily business in India, with billions of transactions being made every month in both the urban and rural economies. But with the increased adoption and dependence on UPI, structural concentration of transaction flows through the ecosystem is becoming a matter of concern. Although UPI is designed with decentralisation on the institutional level, the practice is heavily concentrated in the hands of a couple of private applications. This concentration casts significant doubt on operational resilience, exposure to cybersecurity, competitiveness and regulatory preparedness. Whether UPI is efficient, or not, is no longer a question but whether its current design is in danger of becoming too centralised to collapse.
The Real of Concentration within a Prospectively Open System
UPI is an open network that is managed by the National Payments Corporation of India (“NPCI”), and this allows banks and third-party applications to interact with each other. This form of structure encourages competition and decentralisation in theory. In reality, though, the overwhelming number of apps control the volumes of transactions. The large percentage of UPI transactions is held by PhonePe and Google Pay, which have a long way ahead of Paytm. Although there are multiple alternatives supported by banks and that offered by fintech, most users and merchants tend to use these powerful platforms. This trend is mainly motivated by the network effects: consumers want apps that are accepted by most merchants and merchants want platforms that are used by most consumers. This feedback loop would over time internalize dominance and marginalise smaller players. Although this kind of concentration has enabled quick growth of scale and standardisation of user experience, it has also established the situation, in which the operation of the Indian payment system has become too dependent on the stability of a limited number of private intermediaries.
Market Dominance Operational and Cybersecurity risks
Operational fragility is the foremost threat of market concentration. The disruption is significantly further than the platform itself when a dominant UPI application loses its functionality due to technical problems, such as server failures, cloud service outages, or internal software malfunctions. No one can accept payment by merchants, no one has an option but to accept what is available, and there are blockages or bottlenecks in the transaction of banks. A few apps in the middle of most transactions are no longer the isolated cases of outages; they become systemic events. This is further increased by the lack of proper redundancy at the user level especially to small merchants who only use a single application when it comes to digital payments. Cybersecurity threat is also increased. Powerful UPI sites are the appealing targets of a cyberattack because of the amount of valuable financial information that they handle. Any violation or prolonged attack might undermine user confidence, reveal personal and monetary information and damage trust in digital payments in general. Even though the UPI requires the use of robust authentications and encryption requirements, concentration implies that the effects of any successful cyber-attack will permeate the environment, as opposed to be localized.
Efficiency or Resilience in the Design of Payments Systems
UPI has been successful because of its efficiency in terms of instant settlement, low transaction costs, and interoperability. These benefits have been arguably enhanced by concentration, which has minimized the concept of fragmentation and maintained uniformity in the user experience. Efficiency conscious systems have however been prone to high impact though infrequent failures. On the other hand, resiliency demands a variety of diversity, redundancy, and shock-absorbing capacity. Within the context of payment infrastructure, resilience can mean supporting multiple feasible intermediaries, having effective fallback, and not over relying on a single node. Regulators have the difficulty in ensuring that they create a balance between maintaining the efficiency of UPI and instilling resiliency to its architecture.
Institutional Protection and Regulation
In the awareness of the dangers of concentration, NPCI has offered a market-share limit of 30 percent on the transaction volumes of UPI transactions per individual application. This is aimed at checking on too much domination and ensuring a balance in competition. This cap has been subject to repeated deferrals, last to 2026, as it is feared that imposing a market cap could cause a disruption in the market, and inconvenience of users. Cybersecurity, audit, and incident-reporting requirements have also been imposed by the Reserve Bank of India and NPCI on the participants of UPI. These steps increase the level of security of the base and accountability but are mainly oriented towards individual compliance and not the management of system risks. There are still questions concerning coordinated stress testing, the crisis response system, and what to do in the case of simultaneous failures across dominant platforms.
AMLEGALS Remarks
UPI is one of the landmarks in the Indian digital public infrastructure strategy. Nevertheless, it needs to solve the structural threats posed by market concentration to continue its success. There is no need to break the scale, nor is there any need to punish success, but it is to make sure that the dominance is not turned into frailty. The market-share limits can be enforced gradually, the interoperability can be increased, the stress testing can be compulsory, and the alternative platforms can be incentivized to distribute the risk without destroying efficiency. With India moving towards a cash-lite economy, payment infrastructure resilience will be as significant as payment reach in India. The question of UPI becoming centralised enough to fail will be determined in the long run by the effectiveness of regulators to strike a balance between innovation, competition and systemic stability in future.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com