INTRODUCTION: The Artificial Intelligence (Ethics and Accountability) Bill, 2025 was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill with the stated objective \u201cto establish an Ethics and Accountability Framework for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in decision-making, surveillance, and algorithmic systems to prevent misuse and ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto\u201d. The Bill seeks to serve as a general-purpose legislation to anchor AI-related developments in India. Given its sector-agnostic stance, the Bill marks a departure from the Government of India’s current regulatory approach, which seeks to build on existing sectoral regulations rather than introduce a comprehensive overarching legislation. Adding to this context, it is important to note that Private Member’s Bills in India have seldom been able to garner the necessary support on the floor of the House to become enforceable legislation. Given this legislative history and the evolving regulatory landscape, it remains to be seen how much traction this Bill will attract. OVERVIEW OF THE BILL: 1. Centralised Governance by a Singular Authority: The Bill proposes a single polycentric body comprising members from academia, civil society, and government with expertise in fields such as law, data science, and human rights. This body, namely the Ethics Committee for Artificial Intelligence, would be responsible for policy guidance, regulatory action, and recommending penalties, including monetary sanctions of up to \u20b95 crore and the suspension or revocation of licences to deploy AI systems. Notably, the same body would be responsible for administrative oversight, policy direction, and recommending penalties, thereby centralising AI governance. This approach differs from the three-tier governance architecture proposed under the India AI Guidelines, comprising an AI Governance Group, a Technology & Policy Expert Committee, and an AI Safety Institute. The Bill also does not clarify how penalties may be challenged, nor does it expressly provide an opportunity to be heard before sanctions are imposed, potentially increasing compliance burdens, particularly for start-ups and MSMEs. 2. Special Provisions Concerning Surveillance: Through Clause 5, the Bill provides that AI-enabled surveillance systems must be used only for lawful purposes and with the approval of the Ethics Committee for Artificial Intelligence. However, the Bill does not define \u201csurveillance\u201d or \u201clawful purposes\u201d. It also does not distinguish between surveillance functions performed by public authorities and those undertaken by private entities. Consequently, key government agencies may be required to seek approval before deploying AI-enabled systems for internal security or defence purposes, raising significant practical concerns. 3. Regulation of AI Systems Involved in Critical Decision-Making: Clause 5 also addresses AI systems involved in critical decision-making, including systems used in law enforcement, financial credit, and employment. Such systems are subject to what the Bill terms \u201cstringent ethical reviews\u201d and obligations against discrimination based on race, religion, or gender. However, the Bill provides no objective criteria for identifying such systems or determining what constitutes a \u201cstringent\u201d ethical review, creating uncertainty that may deter innovation. The provision may also create compliance obligations for employers, public service commissions, government recruitment agencies, security establishments, and financial institutions increasingly relying on AI-enabled tools. 4. Obligations on Developers of AI Models and Systems: The Bill defines a \u201cdeveloper\u201d as a person who designs, develops, and implements AI models and systems, and imposes three key obligations: ensuring transparency regarding intended purposes and limitations of AI systems; preventing algorithmic bias through audits and inclusive training datasets; and maintaining records demonstrating compliance with ethical standards. The Bill applies these obligations broadly, irrespective of the scale or nature of AI development, potentially treating large multinational entities and student-led start-ups alike. It does not sufficiently account for the complexity of the AI ecosystem, where responsibility may also involve vendors, dataset curators, cloud-service providers, and downstream deployers. Further, the blanket requirement to ensure diversity and inclusivity in datasets may not be appropriate for all AI use cases, particularly where specialised datasets are required for accuracy. CONCLUSION: A defining feature of the Bill is its reliance on broad definitions and general provisions. While intended to establish an ethical governance framework for AI, these provisions risk creating a wide regulatory dragnet accompanied by considerable uncertainty. The Bill’s approach differs significantly from the sector-specific pathways reflected in the India AI Guidelines and the RBI FREE-AI Framework. Although the Bill raises important questions regarding the future of AI governance in India and provides an opportunity for broader discussion, several of its provisions require greater clarity, precision, and alignment with practical realities to ensure that ethical regulation does not inadvertently constrain innovation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
INTRODUCTION: The Artificial Intelligence (Ethics and Accountability) Bill, 2025 was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[72],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-events"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7437","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7437"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7437\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7438,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7437\/revisions\/7438"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/cscailr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}