Impact of Artificial Intelligence on fundamental rights

Artificial Intelligence and Constitutional Rights in India

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing governance, industry, and personal life across the globe. In India, AI is used in fields as diverse as policing, biometric authentication (Aadhaar), health diagnostics, education, agriculture, and digital platforms. Its capacity to analyze massive datasets, automate complex tasks, and enhance decision-making is unparalleled.

However, these benefits are accompanied by significant risks to fundamental rights, particularly those enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. These include the right to privacy, equality, freedom of expression, and protection of life and liberty.

While India aspires to become a global leader in responsible AI, the legal and ethical frameworks to protect constitutional rights remain underdeveloped. This article explores how the rise of AI intersects with constitutional protections and examines the legal and judicial response required to balance innovation with individual liberties.

AI and the Right to Privacy

The right to privacy, recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 in the landmark case Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, is threatened by the widespread use of AI. AI systems collect, process, and analyze massive datasets, often without informed user consent. The Aadhaar program itself, though upheld in part by the Supreme Court, raised critical questions on state surveillance and data centralization.

• Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) used by police or public systems often records citizens without their awareness. Projects like Delhi Police’s FRT system and DigiYatra in airports collect biometric data without clear opt-out mechanisms.
• Algorithmic profiling by AI in banking, e-commerce, or governance can result in breaches of informational privacy and data misuse, particularly when there is no obligation to anonymize or secure personal data.
• Predictive health AI can track sensitive health conditions and emotional patterns without consent, risking breach of confidentiality.

The absence of a comprehensive data protection law makes it difficult to regulate how this data is collected and used. The Puttaswamy judgment emphasized proportionality and necessity—standards not currently imposed on most AI deployments. The concept of “informational self-determination” articulated in the judgment underscores that individuals should have control over their personal data—a right AI often compromises.

AI and Equality Before Law (Article 14)

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and protection against arbitrary state actions. AI systems, particularly those using machine learning, can inherit and amplify existing societal biases. These include biases based on caste, gender, religion, or economic background.

• In the context of automated hiring, algorithms may discriminate against candidates based on names, addresses, or educational backgrounds that reflect socio-economic status.
• Predictive policing systems, such as those piloted in some Indian states, may disproportionately target marginalized communities based on skewed historical crime data, which reflect systemic prejudices.
• In education, AI-based learning platforms may disadvantage regional language students or those without digital access, reinforcing the digital divide.

In the absence of transparency and accountability, these tools violate the principle of non-arbitrariness. The opaque nature of algorithmic decision-making challenges legal scrutiny and makes it difficult for affected individuals to seek remedy.

Relevant Case Law: While no direct case addresses algorithmic bias yet, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 laid down that procedures affecting fundamental rights must be just, fair, and reasonable—a test which biased AI systems are unlikely to meet.

AI and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)

The use of AI in sensitive areas like law enforcement, border security, health care, and welfare disbursement directly impacts liberty and dignity. Automated decisions that affect individuals’ freedom or access to essential services must adhere to constitutional principles.

• Predictive policing and AI-assisted sentencing may lead to arbitrary arrests or unfair trial processes. If a person is flagged as high-risk by an algorithm without due process or human review, it may result in unjust detention.
• Autonomous decision-making systems are increasingly being considered for allocation of public benefits like ration cards or pension disbursement. Errors in such systems can deprive vulnerable citizens of their basic rights.
• AI triage in healthcare might assign lower priority to elderly or disabled individuals, raising ethical and constitutional concerns.

In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263, the Court held that involuntary narco-analysis and brain mapping violate mental privacy and liberty. Similarly, AI-based behavioral predictions and surveillance infringe on cognitive liberty and personal autonomy.

Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a))

AI plays a growing role in moderating speech on social media and public platforms. While intended to reduce hate speech and misinformation, these tools can suppress legitimate dissent, especially when used without transparent guidelines.

• AI-based content moderation on platforms like Facebook and YouTube may over-censor content based on vague community standards or flawed algorithmic detection.
• Deepfakes and misinformation, created using generative AI, challenge the integrity of democratic discourse. These technologies can manipulate political narratives, impersonate public figures, and sow public confusion.
• Political parties and interest groups have begun using AI-powered bots and deepfakes for election propaganda, misleading the electorate.

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Court emphasized the importance of internet access to free speech and held that restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate. Automated censorship without clear redress mechanisms contradicts this standard.

The Regulatory and Ethical Vacuum

India currently lacks a specific legal framework to govern AI. While the NITI Aayog and the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on AI have published reports proposing ethical principles, these documents have no statutory authority.

The pending Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, though a step forward, addresses only limited aspects of data privacy. It does not impose transparency obligations or define accountability for algorithmic harm.

There are no mandatory standards for:

• Algorithmic transparency
• Human oversight
• Impact assessments
• Bias audits

No law addresses autonomous liability—who is responsible if an AI system causes harm?

In contrast, jurisdictions like the European Union are implementing the AI Act, which classifies AI systems based on risk and establishes strict obligations for high-risk use. India needs a similar graded framework to balance innovation with rights. The need for an independent AI regulatory authority is urgent.

Judicial and Legislative Response

Indian courts have not directly adjudicated AI-specific disputes, but they have articulated foundational principles applicable to emerging technologies:

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy: Affirmed that privacy must be protected in all technological ecosystems, including data-intensive AI.
• Maneka Gandhi: Expanded Article 21 to include procedural fairness and reasonableness, which AI systems must conform to.
• Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020) 10 SCC 274: Set a precedent for requiring empirical justification and proportionality in regulating disruptive technologies.
• Anuradha Bhasin: Reinforced the need for periodic judicial review of state-imposed restrictions.

These decisions underscore the judiciary’s potential to develop an AI jurisprudence rooted in constitutional values. Legislatively, India must enact a rights-centric AI regulation law, ideally backed by an independent regulatory authority to monitor compliance.

Recommendations for a Rights-Based AI Framework

To ensure AI respects constitutional values, the following measures are essential:

• Mandatory algorithmic impact assessments before deployment in governance or law enforcement.
• Transparency in AI models, including the right to explanation for decisions affecting rights.
• Human-in-the-loop systems in critical areas like criminal justice and healthcare.
• Bias audits and open datasets to ensure fairness.
• Establishment of an AI Ethics and Accountability Commission.

These measures must be legislated and enforceable, not merely aspirational.

Conclusion

AI has the potential to strengthen governance, deliver public services efficiently, and foster innovation. However, it also poses grave risks to the fabric of fundamental rights if deployed without caution.

As AI becomes embedded in state functions, public infrastructure, and private services, it must be governed by a robust legal framework grounded in transparency, accountability, and constitutional morality.

The road ahead demands collaboration among lawmakers, judges, technologists, and civil society. A rights-based approach to AI regulation—one that protects dignity, liberty, and equality—is not just desirable, but constitutionally essential.

India must ensure that technological advancement aligns with human values and constitutional mandates. With the world watching how democratic countries like India handle AI, the nation must lead with a framework that safeguards both innovation and individual rights.

End Notes:

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1.
2. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, (2020) 10 SCC 274.
3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
5. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
6. “Responsible AI for All,” NITI Aayog Approach Paper, 2020.
7. Report of the Committee on Artificial Intelligence, Rajya Sabha, 2022.
8. European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act)”, 2021.
9. Jain, Anushka. “Facial Recognition in India: A Threat to Privacy.” Internet Freedom Foundation, 2021. URL: internetfreedom.in/facial-recognition-in-india-a-threat-to-privacy
10. Bhandari, Vrinda. “AI and the Indian Constitution: Looking Ahead.” National Law School Journal, 2023. URL: nls.ac.in/journal/ai-and-the-indian-constitution
11. UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, 2021. URL: unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics
12. Vidushi Marda, “Artificial Intelligence Policy in India: A Framework for Human Rights,” 2022. URL: accessnow.org/ai-policy-india-human-rights
13. World Economic Forum, “AI Governance: A Holistic Approach to Regulation and Ethics,” 2023. URL: weforum.org/reports/ai-governance-holistic-approach
14. OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence, 2019. URL: oecd.org/going-digital/ai/principles