IANAL though, so I am unsure how well they legally described that requirement.
Indian courts are notoriously inefficient. “Better” would take a decade to define through case law. Anyone who can afford that is better served removing physical ports.
In any case, I see no evidence of this in current releases [1].
What's the definition of "better". If Lightning is worse, then based on which criteria?
Based on "It’s not USB".
No, there's no way for a startup selling handheld mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds or laptops to invent their own shiny new connector for charging without providing support for USB-C at the same time.
What exactly is lost if a startup is not able to shove their proprietary connector instead of using the standard? A startup selling floor lamps can't sell their own proprietary power plug and outlet either.
I know that historically most chargers are just a way to hide the true total cost of ownership. But the electronics industry is now shifting towards innovating in more areas than just shrinking the digital parts. Consumer electronics are a big part of how new stuff gets funded.
> A startup selling floor lamps can't sell their own proprietary power plug and outlet either.
Nobody forbids them from doing that.
Nobody is going to put two ports on a device. Required minimum is the legislated maximum for physical interfaces.