Author : Devalay Dey
College: Maharishi University of Information and Technology, Noida
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the most significant technologies of the 21st century. It is being used in various areas such as healthcare diagnostics, crime prediction, judicial assistance, and content creation.AI is changing how government, businesses, and society operate. Although India has adopted AI through initiatives like Digital India and the India AI Mission, there is currently no specific legal framework that oversees AI systems. Existing laws such as the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Digital Personal Data ProtectionAct,2023, only cover parts of AI governance. This article highlights the growing need for a comprehensive AI law in India. It looks at legal issues related to privacy, accountability, bias, discrimination, copyright, and public administration. The article also
Compares India’s approach with international lregulations, like the European Union AI Act. It argues that a dedicated AI law is important to balance innovation with constitutional rights and public welfare.
AI is no longer a concept from the future. It is being used in hospitals to detect diseases, in courts for legal research, in law enforcement for crime prediction, and in businesses to automate decision-making. Despite these advancements, India does not have a specific law that governs AI. The lack of a complete legal framework leads to uncertainty about who is responsible, how transparent AI systems are, how accountable they are, how privacy is protected, and how intellectual property rights are handled. A dedicated AI law would create clear guidelines for developers, users, regulators, and government agencies. This would also help in protecting constitutional values such as equality, dignity, privacy, and due process.
The regulationofAIinvolvesseveral importantconstitutionalandlegalconcepts:
Article14oftheConstitutionensuresthateveryoneistreatedequallyandpreventsthe government from taking unfair actions. AI systems that show bias might break this by treating certain groups unfairly.
Article 21 protects life and personal freedom, and includes the right to privacy, as stated in theSupremeCourtcaseJusticeK.S.Puttaswamyv. UnionofIndia(2017).AIsystemsoften use a lot of personal data, which makes privacy protection a major concern.
Theprinciplesofnaturaljustice,particularlyAudiAlteramPartem(right tobeheard),require that decisions affecting individuals should be explainable and reviewable. Black-box AI systems often fail to provide reasons for their outputs, creating accountability concerns.
Theideasofstrictliability,vicariousliability,andalgorithmicaccountabilitycomeintoplay when AI generated decisions cause harm. Current Indian laws provide limited guidance regarding responsibility for damages caused by autonomous systems.
AIisbeingincreasinglyusedformedicalimaging,diseaseprediction,roboticsurgery,andpatientmonitoring.Thesetechnologieshelpimproveefficiencyandaccuracyin diagnosis.
However,errorsmadebyAIinmedicalrecommendationscanlead toserioushealthissues. WhenanAIsystemmisdiagnosesapatient, itraisesquestionsaboutwhoisresponsible the developer, hospital, doctor, or software provider.
Indianlawcurrentlyhasnoclearanswertothis.AdedicatedAIlawcouldsetupsafety standards, certification processes, and accountability systems for AI in healthcare.
IndiancourtsarestartingtouseAItoolsforlegalresearch,translation,andcase management. The Supreme Court’s “SUPACE” initiative is one example of AI being used to support judicial processes.
While AI can increase efficiency, too great a reliance on automated systems may harm judicialindependenceanddueprocess.Judicialdecisionsrequirehumanjudgementincluding moral reasoning constitutional interpretation, and factual assessment.
Legislation should make sure that AI serves only as an aid, not as a replacement for human judicial discretion.
Lawenforcementagenciesaroundtheworldusefacialrecognitionsystems,predictive policing tools, and surveillance technologies.
Such technologies may assistcrimeprevention butalsocreateserious concerns regarding mass surveillance, wrongfulidentification, and violations of civil liberties. Studies across jurisdictionshaveshownthatfacialrecognitionsystemsmayexhibithighererrorratesfor women and minority communities.
Withoutlegalsafeguards,AI-poweredpolicingcouldviolateArticles14,19,and21ofthe Constitution.
GenerativeAIsystemscancreatetext, music,artwork,softwarecode,andvideosbytraining on vast datasets.
Thisraisessignificantcopyrightconcerns:
• WhethercopyrightedworkscanbeusedtotrainAImodelswithoutpermission.
• WhetherAIgeneratedcontentqualifiesforcopyrightprotection.
• WhoownsAIgeneratedworksthedeveloper,user,orplatformprovider.
IndiancopyrightlawassumeshumanauthorshipandprovideslimitedguidanceforAI-generated works.Therefore, legislative action is needed.
AIsystemslearnfromhistoricaldata.If thetrainingdatacontainssocialprejudices,the resulting algorithm may perpetuate discrimination.
Examplesinclude:
• Recruitmentsystemsthatfavorcertain groups.
• Credit-scoringsystemsthatdisadvantageeconomicallyweakersections.
• Predictivepolicingsystemsthattargetcertaincommunitiesmorethan others.
Suchoutcomesmaybreachtheconstitutionalrightstoequalityandnon-discrimination.Asa result, mandatory bias reviews and transparency measures should be included in future AI regulations.
TheEUhaspassedtheAIAct,which isconsideredthemostcomprehensiveAIregulation globally.
TheActusesarisk-basedapproachandclassifiesAIsystemsintofour categories:
• UnacceptableRisk
• HighRisk
• LimitedRisk
• MinimalRisk
High risk systems, such as those used in healthcare, education, employment and law enforcementmustmeetstrictrequirementfortransparency,safety,andaccountability.
TheUScurrentlyfollowsasector-specificapproach.Federalagenciesprovideguidance depending on the industry, while several states have passed AI-related laws.
Chinahasinstitutedstrictrulesforrecommendationalgorithms,deepfakes,andgenerativeAI systems. Regulatory oversight is stronger, especially when it comes to public order and national security.
iv. India’s Position
India currently relieson existing laws like:
i. InformationTechnologyAct, 2000
ii. DigitalPersonalDataProtectionAct,2023
iii. ConsumerProtectionAct, 2019
iv. CopyrightAct,1957
However, these laws address only certain aspects of AI governance. Unlike the EU, India lacksa.Comprehensivelawthatestablishesriskclassifications,accountabilitystandards,and transparency rules. and enforcement mechanisms.
1. JusticeK.S.Puttaswamy(Retd.)v.UnionofIndia (2017)
The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. This judgmentservesastheconstitutionalfoundationforregulatingAIsystemsthatprocess personal data.
2. AnuradhaBhasin v.Union ofIndia (2020)
TheCourtemphasisedproportionalityandnecessityinrestrictionsaffectingfundamental rights. Similar principles should govern AI based surveillance technologies.
3. ShreyaSinghalv.Union ofIndia(2015)
TheSupremeCourtinvalidatedSection66AoftheITAct,ruling that itinfringedupon freedomofspeech. Thecaseunderscorestheneed to ensurethatAIregulationdoesnot impose disproportionate burdens restrict constitutional freedoms.
4. StateofTamilNaduv.Suhas Katti (2004)
OneofIndia’searliestcybercrimecases,demonstratingthejudiciary’srecognitionof technological challenges and the need for evolving legal frameworks.
5.JusticeK.S.Puttaswamy(Aadhaar-5J.)v.UnionofIndia(2018)
TheCourtreiteratedtheimportanceofbalancingtechnologicalinnovationwithprivacy and constitutional safeguards, a principle directly applicable to AI governance.
VII.Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence offers vast potential for economic growth and innovation. Advancementsinhealthcare,improvementsinjudicialefficiency,andprogressinpublicadministration.However,itisrapid.Deploymentalsogeneratesunprecedentedlegaland ethical challenges concerning privacy, discrimination, accountability, transparency, and intellectual property.
India’sexistingregulatoryframeworkfallsshortinaddressingthesechallenges.Inathorough andcompletemanner.Therefore,dedicatedAIlegislationisnecessarytoestablishabalanced framework. A governance framework that fosters innovation while safeguarding constitutional rights. India should draw inspiration from the European Union’s risk-based regulatory model.
Enact legislation that mandates transparency requirements, algorithmic audits, and human oversight. Data protection safeguards, liability provisions, and independent regulatory supervision. The future of AI regulation in India should be guided by more than just technologicalprogress.Butthroughconstitutionalvalues,democraticaccountability,andthe rule of law. A specialized artificial intelligence. Law is no longer a matter of policy choice but a legal necessity.
IX.FAQs
Q1.DoesIndiacurrentlyhaveadedicatedAI law?
No.Indiacurrentlylacksaspecificlawgoverningartificialintelligence.
Q2.WhyisAIlegislationnecessaryinIndia?
Enacting AI legislation is essential to tackle challenges including privacy concerns, algorithmicbias,accountability,copyrightconflicts,andthemisuseofartificialintelligence technologies.
Q3.WhatisthebiggestconstitutionalconcernregardingAI?
Theprimaryconcernsinvolveprivacy,equality,dueprocess,andsafeguards againstarbitrary state action as outlined in Articles 14 and 21.
Q4.Howdoes theEU AI ActdifferfromIndia’s approach?
WhiletheEUhasimplemented acomprehensiverisk-basedregulatoryframework,India currently depends on a fragmented set of laws.
Q5.CanAI-generatedcontentreceivecopyrightprotectioninIndia?
TheissueremainslegallyuncertainbecauseIndiancopyrightlawisprimarily groundedin human authorship.
X.REFERENCES:-
1. ConstitutionofIndia,Articles14,19(1)(a),and21
2. InformationTechnologyAct,2000(ActNo.21of 2000)
3. DigitalPersonalDataProtectionAct,2023(ActNo.22of2023)
4. CopyrightAct,1957(ActNo.14of 1957)
5. ConsumerProtectionAct,2019(ActNo.35of2019)
6. NITIAayog,NationalStrategyforArtificialIntelligence#AIForAll(2018)
7. NITIAayog,ResponsibleAIforAll:OperationalizingResponsibleAIPrinciples (2021)
8. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, DigitalPersonalDataProtectionAct,2023OfficialGazette
9. PressInformationBureau,PolicyFoundationsforResponsibleArtificialIntelligence, Government of India
11. EuropeanUnion,Regulation(EU)2024/1689(ArtificialIntelligence Act)
12. OECD,PrinciplesonArtificialIntelligence(2019)
13. UNESCO,RecommendationontheEthicsofArtificialIntelligence(2021)
14. CouncilofEurope,FrameworkConventiononArtificialIntelligence,HumanRights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (2024)
15. JusticeK.S.Puttaswamy(Retd.)vUnionofIndia,(2017), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/
16. JusticeK.S.Puttaswamy(Aadhaar-5J.)vUnionofIndia,(2018), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/
17. Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015), https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-0329-2015
18. AnuradhaBhasinvUnionofIndia,(2020),https://blog.ipleaders.in/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india-case-analysis/
19. State of Tamil Nadu v Suhas Katti, CC No. 4680 of 2004 (Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore,Chennai),https://lawbhoomi.com/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-suhas-katti/
20. ANIMediaPvtLtdvOpenAIInc.(DelhiHighCourt,pending).
21. Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) v OpenAI Inc. (Delhi High Court, pending). https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/openai-faces-new-copyright-case-in-india-over-use-of-books-without-permission/articleshow/117577038.cms(TOI)
22. StuartRussell&PeterNorvig,ArtificialIntelligence:AModernApproach(4thed., Pearson, 2021)
23. RichardSusskind,OnlineCourtsandtheFutureofJustice(OxfordUniversityPress, 2019)
24. MireilleHildebrandt,LawforComputerScientistsandOtherFolk(OxfordUniversity Press, 2020)
25. Veale,Michael&Borgesius,FrederikZuiderveen,DemystifyingtheDraftEU Artificial Intelligence Act Computer Law Review International (2021).
26. Hacker,Philipp,AIRegulationinEurope:FromtheAIActtoFutureRegulatory Challenges.
27. Singh,Sahibpreet&Singh,Manjit,ArtificialIntelligenceandIntellectualProperty Rights: Comparative Transnational Policy Analysis (2026)
