The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has released India’s AI Governance Framework.

India’s AI Governance Framework

• Updation of Existing Laws: India is reviewing and updating existing laws (IT Act, DPDP Act, Competition Law) instead of making a rigid new law. This ensures regulation remains flexible and keeps pace with fast-evolving AI technologies.
• Avoiding Extreme Approaches: India avoids the EU model (heavy regulation) and the US model (hands-off approach). 
• Pacing Problem Addressed: India recognises that technology evolves faster than legislation. Hence, laws will be updated dynamically to prevent them from becoming outdated.

Identification Of Four Regulatory Gaps

• Intermediary Liability –Information Technology Act, 2000: Platforms enjoy safe harbour protection and are not liable for AI-generated harmful content (deepfakes, misinformation) as the IT Act treats them only as intermediaries, not as content amplifiers or publishers.
• Data Protection vs. AI Training – Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act): AI needs large, continuously retained datasets for training, but the DPDP Act mandates purpose limitation and data deletion, because privacy laws were designed for static data use and not iterative AI learning.
• Slow Implementation of Tech Laws: New tech laws take years; DPDP took more than 6 years to enact and is still being phased in as the legislative processes are slow, whereas AI evolves rapidly.
• Competition and Monopoly Concerns: AI may lead to price collusion and Big Tech monopolies over cloud, data and models as the data concentration gives dominant players an unfair advantage over Indian startups.

Way Forward

• Clarifying Liability for AI Platforms: Liability for AI platforms should be defined by the degree of system autonomy—the higher the AI’s independence, the greater the platform’s responsibility for harms like deepfakes and misinformation.
• Enabling Privacy-Safe AI Training: Allow AI training using anonymised or consent-based datasets through regulatory sandboxes under the DPDP Act.
• Continuous Legal Review Mechanism: MeitY should adopt periodic updates to existing laws, instead of waiting for a new legislation cycle every few years.
• Preventing AI Monopolies and Protecting Startups: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) should take significant steps to track AI-driven anti-competitive behavior and support open-source Indian AI models and domestic computing infrastructure.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

India’s adaptive regulatory strategy is promising, but its success depends on how quickly laws are updated and how effectively innovation and accountability are balanced.

DOWNLOAD PDF