Answer

Introduction

India’s AI Governance Framework adopts an adaptive regulatory approach, updating existing laws rather than rushing new legislation. This approach aims to address the rapid evolution of AI while balancing innovation, accountability, and risk.

Challenges posed by AI

• Regulatory gaps: Existing laws like the IT Act, 2000, predate AI and fail to define “intermediary” in the context of autonomous or generative AI.
  Eg: Liability for AI-generated content causing harm remains unclear.
• Data privacy conflicts: AI requires large datasets, often conflicting with principles of purpose limitation and storage minimisation under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
  Eg: AI models may retain personal data even after deletion of original records.
• Legal uncertainty: Developers and deployers lack clarity on obligations and exemptions.
  Eg: Use of historical data for AI training may expose firms to legal challenges.
• Liability ambiguity: When AI outputs cause harm or misinformation, accountability is unclear.
  Eg: AI-generated deepfake content or biased predictions.
• Dynamic technological evolution: AI evolves faster than legislation, risking outdated or ineffective regulatory responses.
  Eg: Autonomous decision-making systems in finance or healthcare may not be fully covered under current laws.

Impact on Innovation

• Risk of slow adoption: Legal uncertainty may discourage firms from deploying AI solutions. 
• Encourages flexible development: Adaptive regulation allows AI experimentation without rigid legal restrictions.
  Eg: Startups can develop AI models while the legal framework gradually adapts.
• Promotes inclusive growth: Framework balances innovation with societal safeguards, supporting equitable AI deployment. 

Impact on Accountability

• Clear responsibility gaps: Adaptive model highlights who is responsible for AI harms. Eg: Ambiguity in liability for AI-generated financial advice errors.
• Need for oversight mechanisms: Calls for review of existing laws to assign accountability. 
• Public trust implications: Legal clarity is necessary to ensure ethical AI use.
  Eg: Users may mistrust AI-based public grievance systems if responsibility is unclear.
  

Impact On Risk Management

• Identification of regulatory blind spots: Framework highlights unresolved risks in AI deployment.
  Eg: Misuse of AI in surveillance or deepfake campaigns.
• Adaptive legal review: Continuous assessment helps mitigate emerging risks. 
• Balancing flexibility and safeguards: Ensures innovation without compromising safety. Eg: Autonomous vehicles relying on AI need ongoing risk monitoring under updated rules.

Conclusion

India’s adaptive AI governance approach seeks to harmonize innovation, accountability, and risk management while addressing regulatory gaps. India must modernize legal frameworks, close regulatory gaps, and define AI accountability clearly. Encouraging innovation through adaptive guidelines, sandboxes, and transparent oversight while safeguarding data and managing risks will ensure AI serves inclusive growth, public trust, and ethical, responsible technological advancement.

DOWNLOAD PDF