Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM67716
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-11
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Law
National law Institute University, Bhopal
Law
National law Institute University, Bhopal
Law
National law Institute University, Bhopal
Law
National law Institute University, Bhopal
Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to make or support decisions that determine access to employment, credit, insurance, healthcare, education, public benefits, policing and other socially significant opportunities. The promise of automated decision making rests partly on the assumption that computational systems are more neutral than human decision makers. That assumption becomes difficult to sustain when the data used to train a system reflects historical inequality, when apparently neutral variables operate as proxies for protected characteristics, when datasets inadequately represent disadvantaged groups, or when automated predictions influence the very conduct that later appears to confirm them. Algorithmic discrimination therefore raises a question that is simultaneously technological, constitutional and human rights based. This paper examines that problem through the framework of equality, dignity, privacy, due process and effective remedy, with particular attention to Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It analyses the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 and the India AI Governance Guidelines 2025, while comparing these developments with the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, international human rights standards and selected regulatory approaches in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The paper argues that the most important legal shift is from asking whether an algorithm was intentionally discriminatory to asking whether its design, data, deployment and institutional use produce unjustified disadvantage and whether adequate safeguards exist. It proposes a layered Indian governance model combining constitutional review, targeted statutory duties, impact assessments, meaningful explanation, human review, periodic fairness testing, audit powers, record keeping and effective remedies. The objective is not to prevent the use of artificial intelligence, but to ensure that technological delegation does not become a means of avoiding legal responsibility.
KEYWORDS
The effectiveness of this framework will ultimately depend on whether institutions treat fairness and accountability as continuing legal obligations rather than as technical exercises completed before deployment. An impact assessment that is prepared only to satisfy a procurement requirement, an explanation that merely repeats the output of a model, or a human reviewer who lacks authority to disagree with an automated recommendation would provide the appearance of protection without its substance. Indian law should therefore emphasise institutional responsibility at every stage of the lifecycle. Developers should document foreseeable limitations and testing conditions. Deployers should establish procedures for review, escalation and correction. Regulators should have sufficient technical capacity to examine evidence rather than accepting assurances of accuracy. Courts should be willing to examine the practical operation of automated systems when fundamental rights are affected, while remaining attentive to legitimate confidentiality and intellectual property concerns. Most importantly, individuals must remain visible within the legal process. The fact that an adverse decision has passed through a statistical model cannot diminish the person's entitlement to equality, dignity, privacy and an effective remedy. A rights based approach to artificial intelligence is consequently not an attempt to place technology outside the law. It is an insistence that technological innovation operate within the same constitutional conditions that govern every other exercise of institutional power.[1]
[1]Lt Col Nitisha (n 2); Anuj Garg (n 2); Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) (n 3); Vikash Kumar (n 6). [1]OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD/LEGAL/0449 (2019), updated 2024 <https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449> accessed 6 October 2026. [1]Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No 6 on Equality and Non Discrimination (2018); Vikash Kumar (n 6). [1]Lt Col Nitisha (n 2); Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) (n 3). [1]National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 1.0 (2023) and Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (2024). [1]Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), art 27.
Publication Date
10/7/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
10
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...