The Algorithm and the Constitution: How India is Redefining Rights in the Age of Technology

Author-Devansh Dhama

Abstract

In an era where technology increasingly mediates access to rights and services, India stands at a critical juncture in redefining citizenship and constitutional protections. The rapid integration of systems like Aadhaar and artificial intelligence (AI) into governance has transformed how citizens interact with the state, raising profound questions about dignity, equality, and accountability. While these technologies promise efficiency and inclusion, they also risk algorithmic exclusion, privacy erosion, and a shift from human-centric to machine-mediated decision-making.

This article examines three interconnected challenges: “algorithmic citizenship,” where biometric and AI systems determine eligibility for fundamental entitlements; the governance of AI through existing laws rather than a comprehensive statute; and the emerging debate on legal personhood for advanced AI. Drawing on real-world impacts—such as reported starvation deaths in Jharkhand linked to Aadhaar failures—and landmark judicial responses like the Puttaswamy privacy judgment and recent personality rights cases involving deepfakes, it highlights gaps in the current legal framework.

India’s pragmatic, innovation-friendly approach, exemplified by the 2025 India AI Governance Guidelines, contrasts with stricter regimes like the EU AI Act. However, this lightness risks inconsistent enforcement and inadequate safeguards. The article argues for embedding constitutional values—dignity (Article 21), equality (Article 14), and fairness—into digital systems through algorithmic due process, enhanced transparency, and enterprise liability. Ultimately, adapting India’s constitutional ethos to the digital age is essential to ensure technology serves rather than supplants human rights.

Keywords: Algorithmic Citizenship, Aadhaar, Artificial Intelligence Governance, Personality Rights, Deepfakes, Constitutional Rights, India AI Guidelines, Algorithmic Due Process.

I. Introduction: A Quiet Shift in What It Means to Be a Citizen

Big changes don’t always come with loud announcements. In India today, a silent shift is taking place in how ordinary people experience citizenship. You see it in small but painful moments — a woman at the ration shop trying again and again as the fingerprint scanner refuses to work, an elderly widow waiting months for her pension, a fake video circulating with a public figure’s voice saying things they never said, or a self-driving car making a decision that surprises everyone.

We often talk about India “adopting technology.” But it goes deeper. Systems like Aadhaar and artificial intelligence are quietly reshaping what it means to be a citizen and how the government serves people. Aadhaar now acts as a gatekeeper for food rations, bank accounts, school admissions, and mobile connections. AI tools are being used to distribute welfare and detect fake content. The challenge is that our laws were written for a pre-digital world of human beings with clear intentions. They are struggling to keep pace.

In this article, I explore three key challenges emerging in India: algorithmic citizenship, where machines decide if your rights exist; governing AI without a dedicated new law; and the question of whether smart systems should have any legal standing. These issues matter to all of us because they affect dignity, fairness, and the real meaning of the Constitution in today’s world.

II. Algorithmic Citizenship: When a Machine Decides If You Count

The Constitution once felt straightforward and human. Part II defined who belongs as a citizen, and Part III promised rights such as dignity, equality, and the right to a decent life. Today, however, many of these rights must pass through a digital system first.

Aadhaar was launched in 2016 to reduce leakages in welfare schemes. It started as a practical idea, but it has now become central to how the state interacts with citizens. If the machine does not recognise you, you may be denied basic services like food or schooling. Experts have started calling this “algorithmic citizenship”.

Reports from Jharkhand a few years ago highlighted the human cost. Some families went without food because of failed biometric scans due to worn fingerprints or poor internet. In extreme cases, people lost their lives to hunger. A simple technical failure should not decide whether someone gets to eat. This raises serious concerns under Article 21, which protects the right to life with dignity.

The Supreme Court in the 2017 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case recognised privacy as a fundamental right and placed some limits on Aadhaar. But later policy changes allowed wider use by private companies. Many fear this leads to hidden profiling and quietly excludes poor people from essential services.

The biggest issue is accountability. A human officer can be questioned and appealed against. But when the machine says “no match”, there is often no clear explanation or easy remedy. This is why many legal experts are calling for “algorithmic due process” — basic rules that demand transparency and a chance for human review.

III. Managing AI Without a Dedicated Law: India’s Unique Path

While the European Union created a full AI Act, India has chosen a different, lighter path. In November 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology released the India AI Governance Guidelines. Instead of making new laws, it suggests using existing rules — such as the IT Act, new criminal laws, data protection rules, and consumer laws — to address AI-related issues.

This approach aims to encourage innovation while handling problems as they arise. It sounds practical, but several gaps remain.

Old legal definitions do not always fit new tools. For example, can a system that creates fresh content be treated the same as a simple online platform? If a self-driving car causes an accident, who should be held responsible — the company, the owner, or the machine? Traditional laws look for clear human fault, which does not easily apply to AI.

Courts are also dealing with questions like whether training AI on public data counts as fair use. New coordination bodies have been set up, but the absence of key regulators may lead to inconsistent rules across sectors.

IV. Deepfakes and Personality Rights in the Generative Era

Deepfakes have brought the issue close to home. With just a few seconds of audio, anyone can create a video of a celebrity saying almost anything.

Indian courts have responded creatively. In the 2023 Anil Kapoor case, the Delhi High Court stopped the unauthorised use of the actor’s face and voice through AI. Similar protection was given to singer Arijit Singh and other actors like Kartik Aaryan this year. For more details, see this analysis on Personality Rights in the Generative AI Era.

However, a major gap remains. In India, personality rights usually end when the person dies. Unlike in some other countries, families have little legal power to stop AI from using a deceased person’s voice or image. As the technology improves, this limitation feels increasingly outdated.

V. The Unanswered Question: Should AI Have Legal Personhood?

All these debates eventually lead to one bigger question — should advanced AI systems be given any form of legal personhood?

We already treat companies, rivers, and temple idols as legal persons for practical reasons. Some scholars suggest giving limited “quasi-person” status to powerful AI, but many worry that companies will simply blame the machine to avoid responsibility.

A safer approach is strong enterprise liability — making the companies that develop and profit from AI fully accountable, supported by insurance and clear rules. India can learn from other countries while staying rooted in its constitutional values of dignity and justice.

VI. Conclusion: Bringing Constitutional Values into the Code

Laws are designed to move carefully to avoid mistakes. But when technology advances so quickly, this slowness can leave ordinary citizens suffering — whether through denied food, misused voices, or situations where no one takes responsibility.

Our Constitution is built on strong ideas of dignity, equality, and fairness. The task now is to apply these values to the digital world. This means recognising unfair digital exclusion as a rights violation, updating old laws, and thinking seriously about accountability.

The machines are already here and working among us. We cannot keep pretending the old rules are enough. The real question is whether we will adapt our legal system in time to protect the rights of every Indian.

References

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

• Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, India AI Governance Guidelines (November 2025).

• Right to Food Campaign reports on Jharkhand starvation deaths (various, 2017–2019).

• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., Delhi High Court (2023)

  
  

Note - The information contained in this blog is for general informational purposes only. We endeavour to keep all content accurate, updated, and free from any form of misinformation or objectionable material. However, we shall not be responsible for any claims arising out of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or related issues; such responsibility lies solely with the respective authors. If you find any misinformation or objectionable content on this website, please report it to us at: editors.ilw@gmail.com