The immense growth of artificial intelligence and massive data mining has changed the world in respect to governance structures. The use of algorithmic systems in the decision-making processes concerning the allocation of welfare, predictive policing, financial profiling, and digital surveillance is becoming popular with governments and private corporations. Recent reports in the industry suggest that more than 60 percent of all businesses worldwide rely on artificial intelligence-led analytics in the key decision making processes and billions of people leave a digital trail of personal data every day. This change of algorithmic governance has brought up some urgent issues about the loss of privacy, control of information, and personal consent in the digital age. The paper has provided a critical analysis of the legal implication of artificial intelligence based data mining to the right to privacy. It is an assessment of the way automated decision making systems amass, manipulate and deduce delicate personal data, frequently with no significant openness or responsibility. Through the discussions of constitutional privacy jurisprudence, data protection principles, and new frameworks of cyber-security, the study examines the adequacy of the current legal regimes in dealing with the threats of mass surveillance, profiling, discriminatory results, and function creep. Specific focus is made on a conflict between technological innovation and basic rights protection. The article is supportive of the idea that the existing regulatory practices are still incoherent and responsive. It suggests a legal framework that is rights based and incorporates transparency requirements, algorithmic responsibility, data minimisation, and enhancements of oversight tools. These reforms are necessary in order to make sure that the technological governance develops in line with the principles of democracy and the preservation of the rights to privacy.
- Aharon Barak. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035296
- Balkin, J. M. (2015). The path of robotics law. California Law Review Circuit, 6, 45–60.
- Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
- Bhatia, G. (2019). The transformative constitution: A radical biography in nine acts. HarperCollins India.
- Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12.
- Chandrachud, D. Y. (2017). Privacy and constitutional values (Concurring opinion). In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
- Citron, D. K. (2008). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85(6), 1249–1313.
- Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–33.
- DataReportal. (2024). Digital 2024: India. Kepios.
- DeNardis, L. (2014). The global war for internet governance. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300181350.001.0001
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India).
- E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 (India).
- European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679).
- Greenleaf, G. (2023). Global data privacy laws 2023: India joins the comprehensive data protection regime. Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 169, 1–6.
- Greenleaf, G. (2023). India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023: A comparative analysis. Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 186, 1–6.
- Gupta, A., & Chima, R. J. S. (2018). The Information Technology Act, 2000: A critical analysis. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 1–25.
- Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart technologies and the end(s) of law: Novel entanglements of law and technology. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548945
- Information Technology Act, 2000 (India).
- International Data Corporation. (2023). India artificial intelligence market forecast 2023–2027. IDC.
- International Telecommunication Union. (2023). Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2023. ITU.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
- K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 (India).
- Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. (2023). Annual report. Government of India.
- Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21.
- Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 (India).
- National Association of Software and Service Companies. (2023). AI adoption index report.
- NITI Aayog. (2018). National strategy for artificial intelligence #AIforAll. Government of India.
- NITI Aayog. (2021). Responsible AI for All: Approach document for India. Government of India.
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). OECD principles on artificial intelligence. OECD Publishing.
- Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674736064
- Pasquale, F. (2020). New laws of robotics: Defending human expertise in the age of AI. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674240943
- Reserve Bank of India. (2024). Report on trend and progress of banking in India. Government of India.
- Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation. Réseaux, 177(1), 163–196.
- Selbst, A. D., & Barocas, S. (2018). The intuitive appeal of explainable machines. Fordham Law Review, 87(3), 1085–1139.
- Solove, D. J. (2006). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477–564. https://doi.org/10.2307/40041279
- Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. (2024). The Indian telecom services performance indicators report. Government of India.
- Veale, M., & Brass, I. (2019). Administration by algorithm? Public management meets public sector machine learning. Public Law, 1, 101–123.
- Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
- World Bank. (2022). Digital public infrastructure and inclusive growth. World Bank Publications.
- Yeung, K. (2017). Hypernudge: Big data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118–136.
- Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158
- Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.