top of page
Search

Constitutional Challenges to Automated Governance

Introduction


Technology has become a big part of our daily lives. From ordering food to applying for loans, many of our activities today are guided by computer programs and algorithms. Now, governments around the world, including India, are also starting to use such technology for public service delivery and decision-making. This is called automated governance.

Automated governance means using computers, software, and artificial intelligence (AI) to help the government make decisions that affect citizens. These decisions may relate to welfare benefits, policing, or public services.

While this may help the government work faster, it also creates new risks for people’s rights. What if the system makes a mistake? How can citizens question decisions made by machines?

This article will explain the constitutional challenges automated governance creates in India and suggest possible solutions.


Understanding Automated Governance in India


Automated governance refers to the use of AI tools and software in government processes to save time and reduce manual work.

In India, this is seen in welfare schemes like Public Distribution System (PDS) and Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) where Aadhaar-linked systems decide eligibility. Similarly, Delhi Police uses facial recognition technology (FRT) for identifying suspects.

Some states are also testing predictive policing tools where AI predicts crime-prone areas based on past data.

However, India does not yet have specific laws to regulate AI in governance. These systems mostly operate under older laws like the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the recently passed but not fully implemented Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.


Major Constitutional Challenges


While automated governance brings speed, it also poses serious risks to citizens’ rights under the Constitution.


1. Right to Equality (Article 14) – Bias in Welfare Schemes

Automated welfare systems have wrongly excluded many poor families from receiving benefits, especially in rural areas where digital literacy is low. This creates discrimination, going against the Right to Equality under Article 14.


2. Right to Privacy (Article 21) – Government Access to Personal Messages

Rule 22 of the Draft DPDP Rules (2025) allows the government to access personal data, including private messages, without consent or court approval. This violates the Right to Privacy, as recognized by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, which says any data collection must follow necessity, proportionality, and legal safeguards.


3. Right to be Heard – Natural Justice (Article 14)

Many people don’t know why their benefits were denied by automated systems, and there is often no appeal process. This violates the right to be heard, a core part of natural justice.


4. Lack of Transparency – The Black Box Problem

Automated decisions are often non-transparent, with citizens unable to know how or why decisions were made. This affects their Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a).


Ongoing Legal Battles


Courts in India and abroad are now dealing with these challenges.

In India, the Supreme Court is reviewing a case questioning whether private companies like banks can use Aadhaar data.

The Kerala High Court recently allowed Aadhaar-based verification for school admissions, raising privacy concerns.

Internationally, the UK Home Office faces criticism for using AI in immigration decisions, and Getty Images has sued Stability AI in the UK High Court over unauthorized data use for AI training.

These cases show that both Indian and global legal systems are struggling to balance technology with human rights.


Way Forward


India must act quickly to ensure that automated governance respects constitutional values.

First, clear laws are needed to regulate AI in governance. These laws must ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Second, ethical design principles should guide AI systems to avoid bias and discrimination.

Third, there must be human oversight. People affected by automated decisions should get a chance for appeal and review by real officials.

Fourth, the government must address privacy concerns, especially restricting overbroad powers like those in Rule 22 of the DPDP Rules.

Lastly, reducing the digital divide through offline help centers and digital literacy programs is essential to make sure all citizens can access government services.


In My Opinion: The Digital Divide and Future Concerns


In my opinion, the digital divide is one of the biggest problems with automated governance in India.

Many people, especially in villages and poor areas, lack smartphones, internet access, and digital knowledge. This prevents them from applying for welfare schemes or challenging wrong decisions.

For example, in Jharkhand, many poor families were denied ration due to Aadhaar-related errors, and in some cases, this even led to starvation deaths.

This situation creates a new form of inequality, going against Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

I feel that the government must provide offline support, grievance centers, and easy ways for people to question automated decisions.


Conclusion


Automated governance is India’s future, but it brings new constitutional challenges.

Without proper laws, human oversight, and digital inclusion, people’s rights to equality, privacy, and justice could be harmed.

Timely action by lawmakers and courts can help India strike a balance between technology and constitutional rights.


Bibliography


  1. Ajunwa, Ifeoma. (2022). Automated Governance. North Carolina Law Review.


     https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol100/iss2/2/ 

2.   Economic Times. (2025, February 20). Centre amends Aadhaar rules, allows private entities to use Aadhaar for authentication. 

3.  MediaNama. (2025, February 20). Privacy Concerns Mount as Government Widens Aadhaar Use for Private Entities. https://www.medianama.com/2025/02/223-private-companies-aadhaar-authentication/  

4.  The Guardian. (2024, March 1). Home Office faces legal challenge over use of AI in immigration decisions.  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/11/ai-tool-could-influence-home-office-immigration-decisions-critics-say 

 

 

6.   Supreme Court of India. (2017). Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.  K.S. Puttaswamy V Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 

 

7. Press Information Bureau (PIB), Government of India. (2023). Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 Overview. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2090271 

 

8.    European Commission. (2024). Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence 


 DISCLAIMER- This article has been submitted by Tanishq, trainee under the LLL Legal Training Program. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page