Algorithmic Bias and The Regulatory Void: Rethinking India's Legal Framework for Artificial Intelligence Governance

References

[1] Angwin, Julia et al., Machine Bias (ProPublica Investigations, 2016).

[2] Bostrom, Nick, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014).

[3] Crawford, Kate, Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2021).

[4] O'Neil, Cathy, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (Crown Publishers, New York, 2016).

[5] Russell, Stuart, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control (Viking, New York, 2019).

[6] Zuboff, Shoshana, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (PublicAffairs, New York, 2019) Articles

[7] Barocas, Solon & Selbst, Andrew D., 'Big Data's Disparate Impact,' California Law Review, Vol. 104, No. 3 (2016), pp. 671–732.

[8] Marda, Vidushi & Narayan, Shivangi, 'Data in New Delhi's Predictive Policing

[9] System,' Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, Vol. 5 (2021). Wachter, Sandra, Mittelstadt, Brent & Floridi, Luciano, 'Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in GDPR,' International Data Privacy

[10] Law, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2017), pp. 76–99. Mittelstadt, Brent D. et al.,

[11] 'The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping the Debate,' Big Data & Society, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2016), pp. 1–21 Cases

[12] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.

[13] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

[14] E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

[15] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.

[16] Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335.

[17] State v. Loomis, 2016 WI 68 (Wisconsin Supreme Court).

[18] District Court of The Hague, NJCM v. State of the Netherlands, C/09/550982/HA ZA 18-388 (5 February 2020). Legislation and International Instruments

[19] Constitution of India, 1950.

[20] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023).

[21] Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000).

[22] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (EU Artificial Intelligence Act), OJ L 2024/1689

@article{1717917,
      author = {Anam Shams},
      title = {Algorithmic Bias and The Regulatory Void: Rethinking India's Legal Framework for Artificial Intelligence Governance},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {9},
      number = {11},
      pages = {3707-3715},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1717917.pdf},
      abstract = {The integration of Artificial Intelligence into India's governance and legal infrastructure has accelerated dramatically, yet the constitutional and regulatory architecture required to contain its discriminatory potential remains embryonic. This article examines how algorithmic systems deployed in law enforcement, judicial administration, and public welfare reproduce and intensify pre-existing social inequalities, with particular consequences for marginalised communities including religious minorities, Scheduled Castes, and women. Drawing on constitutional doctrine principally Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) as well as comparative analysis of the EU AI Act, 2024, the article identifies critical doctrinal tools for contesting algorithmic bias and proposes a structured legislative and institutional framework for rights-protective AI governance in India},
      month = {May},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I11-1717917}
  }