India’s AI Surveillance – Legal and Ethical Implications

India’s ambition to establish the world’s largest facial recognition system has sparked debate. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in law enforcement is a double-edged sword. While it promises enhanced security and efficiency, it raises serious concerns regarding privacy and legal frameworks. The deployment of AI-powered systems across various sectors, particularly in policing, has intensified scrutiny over civil liberties and data protection.

AI in Law Enforcement

The Government of India has rolled out AI technologies for surveillance, including facial recognition systems at railway stations and city streets. These initiatives aim to boost policing efficiency. However, the lack of clear regulations raises alarms about potential abuse and overreach.

Legal Framework and Privacy Rights

The right to privacy in India, recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, faces challenges from expansive surveillance practices. The Supreme Court ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) telld the need for robust legal frameworks to protect informational privacy. Yet, current laws remain inadequate to safeguard citizens from intrusive data collection.

Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA)

Passed in 2023, the DPDPA aimed to regulate data privacy. Critics argue that it contains broad exemptions allowing government entities to process personal data without consent. Sections related to medical emergencies and employment data processing raise concerns over potential misuse. The DPDPA’s provisions may inadvertently increase the risks to individual privacy.

International Comparisons

Globally, countries like the United States and members of the European Union have begun to implement regulations governing AI in public systems. The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act categorises AI activities based on risk levels. In contrast, India’s approach lacks comprehensive legislative frameworks. The absence of structured guidelines for data collection and processing is troubling, given the rapid deployment of AI technologies.

Need for Regulatory Framework

A balanced regulatory framework is essential to address the implications of AI on civil liberties. This framework should ensure transparency in data collection and processing, specify the purpose of data usage, and establish strict consent protocols. Provisions for independent oversight are crucial to prevent misuse of AI technologies.

Challenges Ahead

India faces a critical juncture in its AI surveillance journey. While the integration of AI can enhance governance, it must not infringe upon constitutional rights. Policymakers need to embed privacy measures into surveillance protocols, ensuring that data collection practices are transparent and accountable.

Future Directions

To mitigate risks, India should consider adopting a risk-based regulatory approach similar to the EU’s. This includes categorising AI activities based on the potential threat to civil liberties. Proactive measures will ensure that AI serves the public interest without compromising individual rights.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the implications of AI surveillance on civil liberties in India.
2. Explain the significance of the K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India case in relation to privacy rights.
3. What are the key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act? Discuss its potential impact on individual privacy.
4. What are the differences between the EU’s and India’s approaches to regulating AI technologies? Why is a structured framework necessary for India?

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the implications of AI surveillance on civil liberties in India.

1. AI surveillance can lead to mass data collection, risking individual privacy rights.
2. Concerns about “dragnet surveillance” where data is collected indiscriminately, affecting innocent citizens.
3. Lack of transparent regulations increases the risk of misuse and overreach by law enforcement agencies.
4. The absence of judicial oversight can exacerbate violations of civil liberties.
5. The balance between security and individual rights is crucial; unchecked surveillance undermines democracy.

2. Explain the significance of the K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India case in relation to privacy rights.

1. This landmark case established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Supreme Court recognized “informational privacy,” denoting the need for robust legal protections.
3. It emphasized that any surveillance must be backed by law, pursue legitimate aims, and be proportionate.
4. The ruling serves as a precedent for challenging invasive surveillance practices and protecting individual rights.
5. It calls for a comprehensive legal framework to address the challenges posed by modern surveillance technologies.

3. What are the key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act? Discuss its potential impact on individual privacy.

1. The DPDPA aims to regulate personal data processing and ensure accountability in data privacy.
2. It includes provisions for consent, but broad exemptions allow government data processing without consent.
3. Sections on medical emergencies and employment data processing raise concerns about potential misuse.
4. Citizens face increased scrutiny regarding data accuracy, leading to possible punitive measures for errors.
5. The law’s effectiveness in protecting privacy is questionable due to its unbalanced approach favoring state surveillance.

4. What are the differences between the EU’s and India’s approaches to regulating AI technologies? Why is a structured framework necessary for India?

1. The EU employs a risk-based approach, categorizing AI activities into unacceptable, high, transparency, and minimal risk levels.
2. In contrast, India lacks comprehensive regulations, leading to rapid deployment of AI without adequate oversight.
3. The EU prohibits high-risk activities like real-time biometric identification unless strict conditions are met.
4. India’s approach has no structured guidelines for data collection, processing, or abuse prevention.
5. A structured framework is necessary to protect civil liberties, ensure accountability, and prevent misuse of AI technologies.