In a pivotal moment for India’s technological governance, the Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Union Government on a public-interest petition seeking the creation of a comprehensive legal and ethical framework for Artificial Intelligence (AI). The petition urges urgent regulation to prevent misuse of AI in deepfakes, surveillance, and data manipulation, while ensuring innovation remains unhindered. The apex court’s intervention could define how India balances digital progress with fundamental rights in the coming decade.
New Delhi, October 22 —
The Supreme Court on Tuesday took cognisance of growing public concerns over Artificial Intelligence (AI) misuse, issuing a notice to the Union Government in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that calls for a national AI governance framework.
The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, observed that the pace of AI advancement has “outstripped the capacity of existing laws” and that a clear regulatory architecture is needed “before technology starts governing the citizen rather than serving him.”
“AI offers immense opportunity but also poses existential questions for privacy, democracy, and human dignity,”
the CJI remarked, directing the Centre to file its response within four weeks.
The Petition: What It Seeks
The PIL, filed by Delhi-based lawyer Vivek Narayan Sharma, urges the Court to mandate the Centre to:
- Establish a National Artificial Intelligence Commission (NAIC) for oversight.
- Frame ethical and legal standards for AI-generated content, surveillance, and biometric profiling.
- Introduce a licensing regime for AI developers handling large-scale personal data.
- Protect citizens’ right to privacy and reputation from algorithmic exploitation and deepfake abuse.
The petitioner cited the rapid proliferation of AI-generated misinformation, including recent deepfake scandals involving public figures, as proof of India’s unpreparedness.
“Without legal boundaries, AI can erode truth faster than we can defend it,” Sharma argued before the Court.
Court’s Initial Observations
During the brief but significant hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud noted parallels between AI regulation and earlier debates on privacy and social media liability.
“We cannot wait for harm to occur and then react piecemeal. The law must pre-emptively anticipate the misuse of emerging technology,”
he said.
The bench hinted that the matter may be tagged with other pending cases on data protection, surveillance transparency, and intermediary liability.
The Centre’s Response
Representing the Union Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Centre is “in advanced stages” of drafting the Digital India Bill, which will comprehensively replace the IT Act, 2000.
“The proposed bill includes explicit provisions on AI governance, deepfake accountability, and algorithmic transparency,”
Mehta assured the bench.
However, the Court noted that policy formulation and implementation timelines often lag behind the pace of technological disruption.
“Governance cannot be a retrospective exercise,” the CJI observed.
Why This Case Matters
This marks the first time India’s top court has directly addressed the issue of Artificial Intelligence regulation. The proceedings will likely influence not only domestic policy but also international collaborations on AI ethics.
Legal experts say the Court’s intervention could define the boundaries of algorithmic power in a democracy where 850 million people are now online.
“We stand where we once stood before data privacy reform,” noted Advocate Apar Gupta, Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. “The judiciary is again filling a vacuum left by slow legislation.”
The Risk Landscape
The petition lists a series of alarming developments:
- Deepfake pornography targeting women and celebrities.
- Synthetic political campaigns spreading false narratives.
- AI-generated financial scams and fake investment apps.
- Bias in recruitment and credit algorithms.
- Opaque surveillance systems using facial recognition without consent.
India’s lack of unified regulation means such cases are currently handled under patchwork provisions of the IT Act, IPC, and privacy rulings — a system critics call inadequate for the complexity of AI.
Global Context
The Supreme Court’s move follows similar actions by courts and regulators worldwide:
- The European Union is finalising the AI Act, classifying applications by risk category.
- The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched investigations into generative-AI bias and data scraping.
- China’s Deep Synthesis Regulations require AI content to be clearly labelled as synthetic.
India, despite being the world’s fastest-growing digital economy, has yet to enact a comparable law.
“We export coders but import caution,” quipped a policy analyst outside the courtroom.
Expert Reactions
Prof. Nandan Bhatia, Chair of the National Law School’s AI Ethics Centre, welcomed the Court’s notice:
“Judicial urgency will push the executive to deliver. India cannot afford another decade-long legal gap like we saw before the Personal Data Protection Act.”
Industry bodies, however, urged restraint. The NASSCOM and Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) released a joint statement:
“Regulation must protect citizens without stifling innovation. A balanced sandbox model could allow responsible experimentation under oversight.”
The Innovation vs. Oversight Debate
The Court’s notice reignites an ongoing policy debate — should India prioritise innovation or regulation first?
Proponents of light-touch governance argue that excessive control will slow the nation’s global competitiveness in AI, while critics warn that unregulated growth could spawn irreversible social harm.
“The goal is not to cage AI, but to civilise it,” wrote technology columnist Meera Krishnan.
Ethical and Constitutional Dimensions
At the heart of the debate lies the constitutional right to privacy, reaffirmed in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017). The petitioner contends that AI-powered surveillance and data profiling violate this right unless governed by strict proportionality standards.
“AI may automate efficiency, but it must not automate injustice,” said Dr. Arvind Narain, constitutional scholar.
The Court’s eventual verdict could set constitutional benchmarks for future AI legislation — similar to how the Aadhaar judgment shaped data regulation.
Previous Judicial Interventions in Tech
India’s judiciary has repeatedly stepped in to regulate technology where legislation lagged:
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, safeguarding online speech.
- Puttaswamy (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right.
- Pegasus Inquiry (2021) ordered a probe into unlawful surveillance.
The AI regulation case continues this judicial tradition — adapting constitutional principles to the digital age.
Citizens’ Perspective
Public sentiment reflects both hope and anxiety. On social media, hashtags like #AIGovernanceNow and #SafeDigitalIndia trended within hours of the hearing.
“AI isn’t science fiction anymore; it’s inside our phones, banks, and elections,” said Shruti Nair, a software engineer from Bengaluru. “We need laws before we lose control.”
However, AI startups fear that stringent regulation may introduce licensing burdens that could stifle small innovators.
Towards a National AI Authority
Sources in the Electronics & IT Ministry confirm that a National Artificial Intelligence Authority (NAIA) is under consideration. Its responsibilities may include:
- Certifying AI models for ethical compliance.
- Conducting algorithmic audits.
- Enforcing transparency standards.
- Coordinating with law enforcement on misuse cases.
A draft white paper on “Responsible AI for Bharat” is likely to be submitted to the Cabinet soon.
Data Protection Linkages
The Court’s deliberation also intersects with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023), which governs how companies collect, store, and process personal data. Experts say AI systems that scrape or infer personal information from users’ online behaviour must comply with these data-protection principles.
“Without alignment between AI law and data law, enforcement will be toothless,” said Rama Vedantham, senior data-governance analyst.
Education and Awareness
Beyond legal reform, the Court emphasised public education as a preventive measure. The bench suggested that the government introduce AI literacy programs in schools and colleges to help citizens recognise manipulated content.
“An informed citizen is the best regulator,” the CJI remarked.
The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is reportedly preparing a primer on AI ethics for inclusion in senior-school curricula from 2026.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment
The Supreme Court’s notice may appear procedural, but its implications are historic. It signals the judiciary’s entry into one of the most complex policy arenas of the 21st century — the governance of artificial intelligence.
Whether India crafts a regulatory model that champions both innovation and accountability will shape its digital destiny.
The coming months will test whether the nation’s laws can evolve as fast as its code.
As one legal observer put it: “For the first time, India’s Constitution is staring into a mirror made of algorithms.”
#SupremeCourt #AIGovernance #DigitalIndiaBill #ArtificialIntelligence #Deepfakes #CyberLaw #Privacy #SarhindTimes
+ There are no comments
Add yours