Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming governance, business, healthcare, and judicial administration in India by improving efficiency and decision-making. However, the rapid growth of AI has created significant constitutional and legal challenges due to the absence of a dedicated regulatory framework. While the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provide limited regulation, they do not adequately address issues such as algorithmic bias, privacy, transparency, accountability, and liability. This doctrinal study examines the constitutional implications of AI, particularly under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India, with reference to relevant laws, judicial decisions, and international developments. The paper concludes that India requires a comprehensive, risk-based AI legislation to protect fundamental rights while promoting responsible innovation.
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely used in India by people, companies, and the government. It began in the 1950s with the idea of machine learning and uses logic to copy human thinking. Since the 2010s, AI has grown rapidly and is now used in almost every sector to make work easier, faster, and more efficient.
With great power comes great responsibility. AI is widely used in India, but there are no specific laws or regulations for AI, creating problems of liability. India has the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, but neither specifically covers AI-related crimes.
This study adopts a doctrinal research methodology based on secondary sources of data. The research relies on books, research papers, journals, articles, statutes, case laws, and government reports to analyze the constitutional challenges posed by Artificial Intelligence in India and the existing legal framework.
Research Objectives
The objective of this research is to understand the need for specific AI laws and regulations that allow the use of AI without violating fundamental rights.
Meaning of AI :-
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a technology that enables machines to learn, understand, solve problems, make decisions, and work independently like humans. AI can recognize voices, faces, images, patterns, and behaviour and is used in many sectors to make work easier. For example, SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency) helps Supreme Court judges find similar judgments and legal precedents by searching keywords and case details.
Current Indian Laws
In India, currently there are 2 acts available – Informational Technology Act (2000) and Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023). The IT Act is India’s main cyber law that ensures safe use of the internet, digital communication, and online business. It mainly deals with cybercrimes like hacking. However, it does not cover AI issues such as algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, and liability, creating a regulatory gap.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 mainly protects personal data and prevents its misuse without permission. However, it does not fully address AI-related privacy issues, such as facial recognition and mass surveillance of innocent people without reasonable cause.
Constitutional Issues
The Constitutional framework for AI is based on the Golden Triangle of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, but AI can create bias in areas like employment. For example, if a company has mostly male employees, AI may prefer male candidates over females due to pattern of working history. This can violate Articles 14 and 15, which protect equality and prohibit discrimination based on sex, caste, religion, and other grounds.
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. AI algorithms may automatically remove or reduce content without human review, leading to algorithmic censorship. For example, AI may wrongly classify a protest video as a threat and delete or limit its reach, violating freedom of speech.
Article 21 – K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India: Justice Chandrachud explained three types of privacy: protection from physical intrusion, protection of personal data, and the right to make personal decisions. AI can violate all three by tracking faces, voices, locations, collecting personal data, and influencing our decisions. For example, a person searched for video of marathon and then he gets to see all the ads of running shoes and sportswear which can manipulate a person to buy them.
In the case of KS Puttaswamy vs UOI, a proportionality standard was drawn from German Constitutional Law in which it has been stated that to if a State wants to interfere with the privacy of citizens, it should satisfy this fourfold test – 1) Legality – There must be a proper law or authorization 2) Legitimate Aim – There must be a legitimate and intelligible and constitutionally permissible objective 3) Necessity – There must be use of least restrictive means to obtain 4) Proportionality Stricto Sensu – The literal meaning of this phrase is – Proportionality in the strict sense. The public benefit should not strictly disproportionate personal harm.
Problems
While using AI, there are many problems faced mostly because of algorithm, liability, procedural fairness, explained, etc. The most common problem is “The Black Box Issue ” AI programmed has been programmed by machine learning and deep neural networks which basically identifies the patterns and internal decision making. These decisions taken by the AI cannot be explained or justified due to the programming which points to lack of transparency. In the case of Maneka Gandi v. UOI –The judgement held that “the procedures should just, fair and reasonable” but AI taken decisions lacks the ability to explain or justify. For example, a bank uses a tool to approve Loans but the AI rejects your applications without giving any legitimate, intelligible explanation.
AI can recognize human faces and voices, which can be dangerous as it may lead to identity theft or manipulation. Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS) are widely used in offices and public places to track people. This creates an aggregation problem, as even innocent people may be constantly monitored by the government, invading their privacy.
Maharashtra and Telangana police use AI-based predictive policing to predict where crimes may happen. However, it can lead to discrimination based on areas and communities and cause unnecessary surveillance or suspicion. This may violate Articles 14 and 15 and the principle of presumption of innocence.
Comparative Analysis
As mentioned earlier, India currently has 2 specific laws – Informational Technology Act (2000), which mainly focuses on cybercrimes like hacking and Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023), which mainly concerned with the protection of the data, the most important legal vacuum here is no specific laws or rules or regulations for AI.
On global level, European Union has their European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, which is based on risk-oriented laws. It mainly has 2 priorities 1) To promote beneficial development of artificial intelligence and
2) To regulate the lethal autonomous weapons. An the other is, General Data Protection Rights (GDPR) which defines the requirement for explicit consent for the usage of the personal data by the AI models.
Recommendations
India should develop specific act relating to AI discussing about non-compromising rules
India should provide a proper regulations system and procedures to AI companies and also to provide human assistance like double checking systems.
India’s Act should be based on risk-oriented system
Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence offers immense benefits for India's development but also raises significant constitutional and legal concerns, particularly relating to equality, freedom of speech, privacy, transparency, and accountability. The existing legal framework is insufficient to address these AI-specific challenges. Therefore, India needs a dedicated, risk-based AI law that ensures ethical use, human oversight, and protection of fundamental rights while encouraging innovation and responsible technological growth.
References:-
1.REGULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PRIVACY, EQUALITY, AND DUE PROCESS; AUTHOR - BALAMURUGAN S & NIKITHA SREE https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I718
2.ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: ASSESSING INDIA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES; AUTHORED BY - ADV.DAYA PREM- BA LLB, LLM https://www.ijlra.com/details/artificial-intelligence-and-constitutional-rights-assessing-india%E2%80%99s-legal-framework-for-new-technologies-by-adv-daya-prem
3.FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE DIGITAL AGE: CHALLENGES OF ALGORITHMIC CENSORSHIP AND AI MODERATION; AUTHORS - P.V.S. Sailaja, Prof. (Dr.) K Sitamanikyam ,Prof. (Dr.) S. Sumitra https://doi.org/10.52152/84jfyc6
4. REGULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PRIVACY, EQUALITY, AND DUE PROCESS; AUTHOR - BALAMURUGAN S & NIKITHA SREE https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I718
5.REGULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PRIVACY, EQUALITY, AND DUE PROCESS; AUTHOR - BALAMURUGAN S & NIKITHA SREE https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I718
6.THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BLACK BOX AND THE FAILURE OF INTENT AND CAUSATION; Author - Yavar Bathaee https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v31/The-Artificial-Intelligence-Black-Box-and-the-Failure-of-Intent-and-Causation-Yavar-Bathaee.pdf
7.Regulating Artificial Intelligence in India: Balancing Innovation, Accountability, And Fundamental Rights; Author - DEVKANT https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I10-1715947
8.REGULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PRIVACY, EQUALITY, AND DUE PROCESS; AUTHOR - BALAMURUGAN S & NIKITHA SREE https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I718
9.REGULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PRIVACY, EQUALITY, AND DUE PROCESS; AUTHOR - BALAMURUGAN S & NIKITHA SREE https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I718