Author: Kashish Srivastava, Lloyd Law College
To the Point
India also encounters major legal challenges in regulating artificial intelligence (AI), such as the lack of specific legislation, patchy regulatory measures, unsolved liability problems, algorithmic bias, privacy threats, and loopholes in enforcement. Although current legislation like the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, provide incomplete regulation, they do not suffice to tackle the intricate and rapidly changing issues generated by AI technologies.
Use of Legal Jargon
• Algorithmic Accountability: The requirement that AI systems be made transparent and auditable for fairness and legality.
• Data Localisation: Require specific types of data to be stored within Indian territorial boundaries.
• Personality Rights: Legal rights safeguarding a person’s name, likeness, and persona against unapproved commercial exploitation.
• Intermediary Liability: Legal obligation of platforms for hosting third-party material.
• Injunction: A judicial order to a party to do or not to do certain acts.
The Proof
Substantive Legal Deficiency: India is in want of holistic laws on AI-specified risks. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, though a positive development, gives sweeping government exemptions and does not adequately govern AI-based data processing or hold algorithms accountable.
Constitutional Incongruence: AI-facilitated surveillance and data collection tends to contravene the right to privacy (Article 21, Constitution of India), as enshrined in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). The regulatory void negates the principle of proportionality, leading to a potential for uncontrolled state and private surveillance.
Lack of Procedural Adequacy: There is no required judicial review or explicit consent procedures for high-risk AI operations. This procedural deficit allows for possible systematic invasions of informational privacy with no effective legal remedy.
Regulatory Arbitrariness: In contrast to the EU risk-based framework (EU AI Act), India’s absence of express prohibitions in law or sectoral standards for AI technologies subjects citizens to arbitrary regulation and unrestrained surveillance.
Uncertainty of Liability: Existing tort law concepts like vicarious and strict liability are not well-suited to tackle damage inflicted by autonomous AI systems. Uncertainty persists on whether to assign liability to developers, users, or the AI for faults or damages.
Admissibility of Evidence from AI: The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lacks clarity on the admissibility and reliability of AI-generated evidence, bringing uncertain difficulties in court proceedings.
Algorithmic Discrimination and Bias: AI algorithms learned from biased data can entrench or even escalate discrimination, compromising equality before the law (Article 14, Indian Constitution).
Untransparent Decision-Making: The “black box” characteristic of most AI algorithms inhibits transparency and judicial review, running contrary to natural justice principles.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence is transforming industries like healthcare, finance, and governance in India, but its speedy takeoff has left behind the creation of a strong body of law. The prevailing regulation is defined by sectoral silos, absence of AI-specific law, and enforcement issues. The crucial legal concerns are data privacy, algorithmic bias, liability for AI-driven outcomes, and intellectual property and personality right protection. Recent court rulings and official guidelines suggest a changing mindset, but holistically adaptive regulation is needed urgently to weigh innovation against citizen rights and social welfare.
Legal Challenges in Regulating AI
Absence of Specialized Legislation: India lacks a special law on AI. The Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, offer some protection but are not equipped to handle the specific complexities of AI, including autonomous decision-making and algorithmic explainability.
Distributed Regulatory Strategy: AI is regulated sector by sector today, resulting in patchiness and regulatory lacunae. Various sectors have their own standards, making it difficult to have harmonized regulation.
Liability and Responsibility: Assigning liability for harm caused by AI is not clear-cut. The lack of a defined framework means uncertainty regarding who is responsible—developers, operators, or users.
Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination: AI can entrench or increase biases, leading to discriminatory decisions, particularly in the sensitive fields of hiring or lending. There is no legislative process to audit or correct such biases.
Privacy and Data Protection: The use of big data by AI poses huge privacy issues. Though the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, requires consent and data localisation, enforcement is problematic.
Intellectual Property Issues: Issues on copyright ownership of works produced through AI and copying of copyrighted material without permission to train AI are unsettled. The recent case of copyright infringement against OpenAI in India has brought these issues to the forefront.
Personality Rights and Deepfakes: Abuses of AI to produce deepfakes or infringe on personality rights have prompted celebrated judicial interventions, but statutory protection is still in development.
Enforcement Gaps: Regulatory agencies usually do not have the technical proficiency and resources required to effectively monitor and impose AI-related guidelines.
Case Laws
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court established that the right to privacy is a basic right. This case is significant to AI systems that handle sensitive personal information.
Delhi High Court, Anil Kapoor v. Unknown (2023): An injunction was granted by the court safeguarding actor Anil Kapoor’s personality rights from AI-deepfakes and unauthorized commercial use, establishing a precedent for image rights in the context of AI.
Case of OpenAI Copyright Infringement (2025): Media outlets sued OpenAI for using copyrighted material in unauthorized training of AI. The case has been anticipated to establish a precedent for copyright protection in AI.
Conclusion
India’s law is trying to catch up with the speeding development of AI technology. Although current laws offer some level of protection, they are insufficient in enabling the distinctive challenges of AI, like algorithmic accountability, liability, bias, and privacy, to be met. Judicial rulings in recent times and government guidelines show a developing awareness of these problems, but inclusive, dynamic, and domain-agnostic regulation is necessary. Successful regulation of AI in India needs to reconcile the drivers of innovation, human rights, and public good, demanding efforts from government, industry, and civil society to work together.
FAQS
Why must Artificial Intelligence be regulated in India?
In order to make AI safe, ethical, and secure, and to uphold human rights, privacy, and security, while promoting innovation.
What are the primary legal hurdles in regulating AI in India?
The primary challenges are data privacy, accountability for AI outputs, algorithmic bias, intellectual property protection, and developing flexible legal frameworks.
How do Indian laws presently tackle AI-related matters?
By current laws such as the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which provide incomplete frameworks for cybersecurity, data protection, and privacy.
How significant is ethical AI in India’s regulations?
Ethical AI ensures fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination, supported by regulations to prevent the reinforcement of social biases.
