India and the European Union (EU) – two major economic actors in the global economy – are involved in negotiating an investment protection agreement (IPA). These negotiations are taking place against the backdrop of several countries reforming their investment treaty rulemaking to strike a balance between the goals of investment protection and safeguarding their regulatory autonomy. This article compares the EU’s and India’s investment treaty practices by focusing on three key investment protection features: fair and equitable treatment, protection from unlawful expropriation, and most favoured nation treatment. The objective is to find the areas of divergence and convergence between the two sides. While the EU and the Indian treaty practices diverge quite a bit, there is convergence also. Most importantly, both sides are keen to reconcile their promise of protecting investors' rights with their sovereign right to regulate in the public interest. There’s also the intent to cut down on the unfettered discretion that arbitral tribunals enjoy while interpreting investment treaties. However, the article finds that the EU’s treaty practice is closely aligned with these goals compared to India’s. Thus, India should revisit its defensive investment treaty practice and close the gap to make these negotiations successful.