Author: Krutika Patil, REVA University.
To the Point
In 2022 alone, more than thirty laws related to AI were passed in over a hundred countries. What explains this sudden rush to regulate AI? The government of India is actively investing in the artificial intelligence sector. Most recently,it sanctioned a substantial investment of Rs.103 billion for AI projects over the period of five years. This data alone serves the signifance of regulation needed in AI for the future. The government has introduced initiatives to fast track the growth and supports the “pro-innovation” growth. Understanding the legal enforcment in the sector of Artificial Intelligence becomes a pivotal conversation to have.
Abstract
India has a legal system that is not, to put it simply “simple”. It carries a plethora of acts and legislations, comprising of the Constitution , privacy law, intellectual property, competition law, media law, consumer law, employment law,contract law and tort law. In the current landscape, India lacks a defined regulation for AI. However, it has established a series of initiatives and guidelines to help better manage the AI. The Laws in AI do not directly address the issue as the evolution of AI is taking its baby-steps. The indian frame makers have , nonetheless, defined liability and responsibilies which found absent attract penalties. This has been decided in various cases as well.
Use of Legal Jargon
The regulation of AI is absent from lex specialis and a fragmented legal foundation. The enactments inlcudes Information Technology Act ,2000 and the Digital Data Protection Act,2023 provide oversight and liability. The infringement can lead to potential infringement of Fundamental Rights under Article 14,19,21 of the Constitution. One must also bear in mind the ethical standards and the transnational character of AI.A central framework can ensure rules of fair and unbiased algorithms, goverence of languge learning models, mandatory audits , oversight mechanism all of which will uphoald the constituional rights and public interest.
The Proof
The liability for use and misuse of AI can be classified as follows: Malicious Use, Algorithm Discrimination, Transparency Failures, Systemic Risks , Loss of Control. The 2021 NITI Aayog report has defined certain “risks and consideration” to manage responsible AI practices. A report by TRAI briefly mentions certain risks – “low quality data, data biases,data privacy , biased algorithm and unethical use of AI”. Likewise the Telecom Engineering Center has published a draft AI risk assessment framework but focuses eniterly on fair outcome.
Published by NITI Aayog, this policy framework, titled “AI for All”, outlines the government’s vision for AI adoption in five key sectors—healthcare, agriculture, education, smart mobility, and infrastructure. However, it is non-binding, lacks regulatory mandates, and focuses on facilitation rather than enforcement.
The regulation of AI is based on the nature of harm it causes. The following are classified harm and the regulatory framework.
Child Pornography using AI generated Videos
Information Technology Act,2000
POSCO Act,2012
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023
Unauthorized impersonation using AI generated deepfakes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (sec 319,356)
Information Technology Act,2000 (sec 66D,67A,67B,79)
Biased algorithm tools
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)Act,2019
Code on Wages,2019
Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act,1989
Use of an individual’s without consent to train AI model
Digital Personal Data Protection Act,2023
Information Technology Act,2000
Miseading ads on accuracy of AI services
Consumer Protection Act,2019
Use of copyright-protected material in AI – generated content without permission of the creator.
The Copyright Act,1957. (Sections 51 and 52)
Case Laws
1.Titan Industries Limited v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers (2012)
In the case of Titan Industries Limited v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, the Delhi High Court the Delhi High Court in particular protected the personality rights of celebrities like Mr.Amitabh Bachchan and Ms.JayaBachchan whose images were employed in advertising commercials without approval. The court held that popular persons have a distinctive business interest in authorizing their personality rights and hence are entitled to manage the use of their image.
2. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India 1995 AIR 922
Further, in Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, the court laid down the importance of consumer protection along with the accountability of manufacturers for cases defects in products. It goes hand-in-hand with strict liability principles, which may extend to AI systems if treated as consumer products.
3.Dr Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 422
Dr Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi is a landmark case in Indian medical jurisprudence that has significant implications for liability in the context of advanced medical technologies. The Supreme Court of India dealt with a situation where a patient died during surgery due to what was argued as a lack of due care on the part of Dr. Suresh Gupta. It was held that the doctor is held liable and in such cases liabiity depends on if the harm was predictable and if standard of was not followed. It is setting principle for placing liability in the medical sector,involving complicated medical technologies.
Recommendation
The government should clearly define the aim of AI regulation, ensuring that the legislation or policy intervention is clearly defined and based on demonstrable market failures, such as accountability deficits, information asymmetries, or externalities like algorithmic harm. Instead of regulating AI as a uniform technology, lawmakers should be more concerned with issue-specific matters—such as the manipulation of deep fakes or biased algorithmic decisions— and identifying distinct phases in the AI lifecycle, including data collection, model training, deployment and cleanup (i.e., ensuring pathways to accountability, transparency and rectifying impacts of flawed decision-making in the AI lifecycle).It is important that AI regulations clarify who is subject to compliance and possible legal liability from legislation—whether it be developers, deployers, or data fiduciaries—and under what circumstances. For instance, any law refers to the issue of intermediary liability, while responsibility upon the human-in-the-loop mechanism as methods of classification under the Information Technology Act, 2000, would be key for understanding the roles and Impacts of the AI chain.
Conclusion
The lack of regulations surrounding artificial intelligence presents serious ethical, legal, and societal issues as India accelerates its digital aspirations and adopts AI across industries. Existing laws, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, the Information Technology Act of 2000, and several sectoral laws, provide a variety of safeguards, but they are not comprehensive enough or specific enough to handle the particular risks that AI systems present. While the current reliance on non-binding policy documents and soft law tools, like the NITI Aayog’s “AI for All” strategy, shows a pro-innovation stance, it may not be sufficient to ensure accountability, equity, and constitutional compliance.
To regulate AI in a way that is technology-neutral, morally sound, and consistent with global best practices, a strong, rights-based legal framework is desperately needed. To that end, a framework must define liability, require transparency and explainability, prohibit discrimination, and create a clear authority. Until that point, various forms of judicial interpretation and reinterpretation of statutes, along with executive policy, will continue to constitute AI regulation in India, one case at a time.
FAQS
1. Why is AI regulation necessary in India?
AI regulation is essential to mitigate risks related to privacy violations, algorithmic discrimination, accountability gaps, and ethical concerns. It ensures that AI is used in a lawful, fair, and transparent manner without infringing on fundamental rights.
2. Is there any regulatory body currently overseeing AI in India?
No specific statutory body exists solely for AI. However, MeitY, NITI Aayog, and sectoral regulators (like RBI, SEBI, IRDAI) issue policy guidelines or advisories. A central AI Regulatory Authority has been proposed in policy circles but is yet to be established.
3. What are the biggest legal concerns with AI today?
Lack of accountability for AI decisions,Bias and discrimination,Violation of privacy rights,Legal uncertainty over AI-generated content and liability.
4. How can bias in AI algorithms be legally addressed in India?
Bias in AI systems can lead to discriminatory outcomes, especially in hiring, lending, or law enforcement. Though India doesn’t have an AI-specific anti-discrimination law, existing statutes like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 could be invoked if biased algorithms result in exclusion or harm to protected groups. Algorithmic fairness audits may become mandatory in future legislation.
5. What are the key compliance principle for AI regulation
The principle of safety and reliability
The principle of equality
The principle of inclusivity and non-discrimination
The principle of privacy and security
The principle of transparency
The principle of accountability
The principle of protection and reinforcement of positive human values
REFERENCES
“Legislative bodies in 127 countries passed 37 laws that included the words “artificial intelligence” this past year,” in Shana Lynch, “2023 State of AI in 14 Charts,” Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, April 3, 2023 https://hai.stanford.edu/news/2023-state-ai-14-charts (last visited 5th May,2025 ; 10:03 a.m)
Abhishek Dey and Melissa Cyrill,India’s Regulation of AI and Large Language Models, March 27, 2024 , https://www.india-briefing.com/news/india-regulation-of-ai-and-large-language-models-31680.html (last visited 5th May,2025 ; 10:15 a.m)
Id.
https://www.india-briefing.com/news/india-regulation-of-ai-and-large-language-models-31680.html
Shilpi Sharan and Nikita Sinha , “Dehli High Court Restrains Unauthorised use of personality attributes of Amitabh Bachan (December 2 , 2022)https://ssrana.in/articles/delhi-high-court-amitabh-bachchan-personality-rights/ (last visited 5th May,2025 ; 10:15 a.m)
Chandra, Aparna (2005) “Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT, Delhi, (2004) 6 SCC 422.,” National Law School of India Review: Vol. 17: Iss. 1, Article 7.
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol17/iss1/7 (last visited 5th May,2025 ; 10:15 a.m)
AI Watch : Global regulatory tracker – India https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-india (last visited 5th May,2025 ; 10:15 a.m)
