India is currently debating how to regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) while simultaneously building domestic capacity. The issue gained prominence after China proposed draft rules for consumer safety in emotionally interactive AI services, raising concerns about India’s regulatory gaps. This evolving policy debate is increasingly relevant for GS Paper III (Economy, Science & Technology) discussions among aspirants preparing through UPSC coaching in Hyderabad.
India’s Current Approach to AI Regulation
- Legal framework: India relies on the IT Act and Rules, privacy laws, and financial regulations to manage AI risks.
- MeitY initiatives: Platforms are required to curb deepfakes, fraud, and label “synthetically generated” content.
- Financial regulators: RBI has introduced the FREEAI framework to manage model risk in credit. SEBI has asked regulated entities to ensure accountability in AI use.
- Nature of regulation: While some measures are proactive, most remain reactive, addressing risks after they emerge.
Comparison with China
- China’s draft rules propose a consumer safety regime targeting psychological harms from AI.
- Companies may be required to warn against excessive use and intervene when users show signs of emotional distress.
- India’s approach is less intrusive but also incomplete, as it lacks a clear duty of care for AI product safety.
Challenges for India
- India has a rapidly expanding AI adoption ecosystem but trails the United States and China in developing frontier AI models.
- A premature “regulate first, build later” approach risks slowing innovation when domestic technological capacity is still evolving.
- Heavy dependence on foreign-built AI models could increase strategic and economic vulnerability—an issue often discussed in policy analysis at Hyderabad IAS coaching.
Way Forward
- Build capacity: Expand access to computational infrastructure, scale public procurement of AI solutions, and strengthen the translation of research into industry applications.
- Upskill workforce: Invest in training professionals in AI deployment, ethics, and risk management to enhance domestic capability.
- Balanced regulation: Focus on downstream applications—especially high-risk deployment contexts—rather than restricting upstream innovation.
- Consumer protection: Introduce obligations such as incident reporting and transparency for companies, instead of intrusive monitoring of user behaviour.
- Practical governance: Frame regulations tailored to Indian market realities, without assuming global technology trajectories will automatically align with India’s preferences—an approach emphasised in governance modules of civils coaching in Hyderabad.
Conclusion
India must strike a balance between regulating AI risks and building domestic capacity. By improving resources, upskilling its workforce, and adopting practical consumer safety measures, India can ensure AI progress remains both innovative and responsible.
This topic is available in detail on our main website.
