Dear [Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology Government of India],
Thank you for the opportunity to review the law policy draft. I have carefully considered the
document's content and objectives, and I would like to offer the following suggestions:
#[Link] STRENGHTS:
India's AI Governance Guidelines demonstrate remarkable strengths through a comprehensive and
forward-thinking approach to AI regulation.
The framework establishes a holistic governance strategy centered on ecosystem understanding, risk
mitigation, and responsible innovation. By creating an Inter-Ministerial AI Coordination Committee
and Technical Secretariat, India aims to develop a coordinated approach that transcends traditional
sectoral boundaries.
The guidelines are anchored in eight robust principles emphasizing transparency, accountability,
safety, fairness, and human-centered values. This approach recognizes AI's complex potential for
both societal benefit and potential harm.
A distinguishing feature is the emphasis on technological innovation in governance itself. The
document recommends "techno-legal" approaches, suggesting technological measures like
watermarking and traceability to complement legal frameworks. This signals a sophisticated
understanding of AI's dynamic nature.
The regulatory approach is intentionally flexible, starting with activity-based regulation while
preserving adaptability for future technological developments. This prevents overregulation while
maintaining mechanisms for continuous monitoring and adaptation.
The guidelines also prioritize ecosystem transparency through voluntary industry commitments, an
AI incident database, and collaborative risk assessment. By encouraging self-regulation and cross-
stakeholder engagement, India is positioning itself to be proactive rather than reactive in AI
governance.
The framework's core philosophy centers on harm minimization - recognizing that effective
regulation should balance innovation protection with risk mitigation, ultimately serving broader
societal interests.
1. Comprehensive Governance Approach
- Whole-of-government strategy with cross-ministerial coordination
- Establishes an Inter-Ministerial AI Coordination Committee
- Creates a Technical Secretariat for ecosystem monitoring and risk assessment
2. Robust Governance Principles
- 8 clear principles including transparency, accountability, safety, privacy, fairness
- Focuses on human-centered values and inclusive innovation
- Acknowledges AI's potential risks and benefits
3. Ecosystem-Level Perspective
- Takes a holistic view of AI actors across development lifecycle
- Recognizes interconnectedness of different stakeholders
- Aims to understand AI ecosystem dynamics
4. Proactive Risk Management
- Proposes establishing an AI incident database
- Encourages voluntary industry commitments on transparency
- Focuses on harm mitigation rather than punitive approaches
5. Technological Innovation in Governance
- Recommends using "techno-legal" approaches
- Suggests technological measures like watermarking and traceability
- Emphasizes "digital by design" governance
6. Flexible Regulatory Framework
- Starts with activity-based regulation
- Leaves room for evolution based on technological developments
- Avoids overly prescriptive regulations
7. Forward-Looking Approach
8. - Recognizes AI's rapid technological evolution
Creates mechanisms for continuous monitoring and adaptation
Balances innovation support with risk management
#2 INCONSISTENSIES AND AMBIGUITIES :
Definitional Challenges
acknowledges uncertainty around defining AI, noting that most definitions are either too narrow or
too broad. This lack of clear definition creates potential regulatory gaps and interpretation
challenges.
Regulatory Scope Ambiguity
While advocating an activity-based regulatory approach, the guidelines remain vague about precise
implementation mechanisms. The transition from activity-based to potential combination
approaches lacks clear operational criteria.
Liability and Accountability Uncertainties
The report highlights complex questions around intellectual property rights and AI-generated
content without providing definitive resolution. Specifically:
- Unclear thresholds for human input in AI-generated works
- Unresolved copyright implications for AI model training
- Uncertain liability chains across AI ecosystem actors
Enforcement Mechanism Gaps
The proposed Inter-Ministerial AI Coordination Committee lacks explicit enforcement powers. The
voluntary commitment approach may struggle to ensure comprehensive compliance.
Technological Capability Assessment
No concrete methodology is proposed for categorizing AI systems' risk levels. The document
acknowledges that computational capacity alone is insufficient for risk assessment but doesn't
outline alternative evaluation frameworks.
Jurisdictional Overlaps
The whole-of-government approach potentially creates regulatory complexity, with potential
jurisdictional conflicts between different ministerial bodies and sectoral regulators.
Tension Between Innovation and Regulation
The guidelines aim to balance innovation support with risk mitigation, but the exact mechanisms for
achieving this balance remain conceptual rather than prescriptive.
India's AI Governance Guidelines exhibit a sophisticated structural approach organized around
several key architectural elements:
Governance Framework Structure
- Hierarchical multi-level coordination mechanism
- Top-level: Inter-Ministerial AI Coordination Committee
- Technical advisory layer: Technical Secretariat
- Operational implementation through various government departments and regulators
Principle-Based Architecture
- 8 foundational governance principles
- Systematic categorization of principles
- Designed to be comprehensive yet adaptable
Ecosystem View Structure
- Lifecycle-based approach (Development, Deployment, Diffusion)
- Multi-stakeholder perspective
- Includes actors like data principals, developers, deployers, end-users
Regulatory Mechanism Structure
- Activity-based initial regulation
- Potential evolution to combination approach
- Flexible threshold-based identification of regulatory requirements
Recommendation Structure
- Six primary recommendations
- Focused on coordination, transparency, risk management
- Incremental implementation strategy
Risk Management Structure
- AI incident database establishment
- Voluntary commitment frameworks
- Technological risk mitigation measures
Institutional Coordination Structure
- Cross-ministerial collaboration
- External expert involvement
- Continuous monitoring and adaptation mechanisms
#3 STRUCTURE
The architectural framework emanates from a multi-tiered governance model featuring an Inter-
Ministerial AI Coordination Committee at its apex, supported by a Technical Secretariat for detailed
operational execution. This hierarchical structure enables cross-departmental collaboration and
systematic policy implementation.
The guidelines are fundamentally structured around eight core governance principles, creating a
principled foundation for AI regulation. These principles are deliberately crafted to provide a
holistic yet adaptable regulatory approach, addressing transparency, accountability, safety, and
ethical considerations.
The structural design adopts an expansive ecosystem view, examining AI's lifecycle across
development, deployment, and diffusion stages. This approach recognizes the complex interactions
between various stakeholders like data principals, developers, deployers, and end-users.
Regulatory mechanisms are strategically structured to begin with activity-based regulation, with
built-in flexibility to evolve into more nuanced combination approaches. This adaptable structure
allows for responsive governance as technological landscapes transform.
The recommendation structure is methodically organized into six primary recommendations, each
targeting specific governance dimensions such as coordination, transparency, and risk management.
This systematic approach ensures comprehensive coverage of potential regulatory challenges.
Institutional coordination is embedded within the structure, promoting continuous cross-ministerial
collaboration, integrating external expert perspectives, and maintaining mechanisms for ongoing
monitoring and adaptive governance.
The entire structural design emphasizes a dynamic, technologically informed approach that balances
innovation potential with systematic risk management, positioning India at the forefront of
responsible AI governance.
#4 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS:
Regulatory Frameworks:
The subcommittee explored different regulatory models including entity-based regulation typical in
sectors like banking, activity-based regulation focusing on specific technological behaviors, and a
hybrid approach combining threshold-based identification with selective regulatory application.
They ultimately recommended starting with activity-based regulation given AI's nascent industry
stage.
Copyright and Intellectual Property:
Alternative approaches for handling AI's interaction with copyrighted materials were examined.
This included exploring potential mechanisms for AI model training, developing guardrails to
protect copyright holders, and evaluating the eligibility of AI-generated work for copyright
protection.
Antitrust Considerations:
The document suggests alternative perspectives on managing potential market dominance,
recommending proactive industry engagement, allowing competition commissions to examine
algorithmic interactions, and monitoring emerging technological dynamics that might create unfair
competitive advantages.
Definitional Strategies:
Instead of rigid technological definitions, the subcommittee favored a technology-agnostic approach
focusing on harm prevention. They recognized that overly specific definitions might quickly
become obsolete given AI's rapid evolution.
Governance Mechanisms:
Alternatives ranged from strict sectoral regulation to broad cross-cutting frameworks, with a
preference for flexible, self-regulatory models that encourage responsible innovation while
maintaining robust oversight.
The overarching philosophy driving these alternatives was minimizing potential harm while
preserving technological innovation's transformative potential.
#5 STAKEHOLDER CONSIDERATION
The framework identifies multiple stakeholder groups including AI developers, deployers, data
providers, end-users, and government regulators. Rather than imposing rigid top-down controls, the
approach emphasizes collaborative engagement and shared responsibility.
The proposed Inter-Ministerial AI Coordination Committee represents a groundbreaking
stakeholder integration mechanism. By including both official government representatives and non-
official members from industry and academia, the committee ensures diverse perspectives are
considered in AI governance.
Stakeholder responsibilities are framed around key principles of transparency, accountability, and
risk mitigation. The guidelines encourage voluntary commitments such as releasing transparency
reports, conducting internal and external model testing, and implementing robust data governance
measures.
The Technical Secretariat plays a crucial role in stakeholder coordination, serving as a focal point
for multi-disciplinary expertise. Its mandate includes mapping ecosystem actors, assessing cross-
cutting risks, and facilitating collaborative solutions.
A distinctive feature is the emphasis on an ecosystem-wide view, recognizing that AI system
outcomes emerge from interactions between different stakeholders. This approach moves beyond
siloed regulatory perspectives, promoting a more holistic understanding of technological risks and
opportunities.
The framework also prioritizes protecting individual rights, with specific considerations for non-
discrimination, privacy, and inclusive innovation. By balancing innovation support with risk
management, the guidelines aim to create a supportive environment for responsible AI
development.
The approach is intentionally flexible, allowing stakeholders to develop self-regulatory mechanisms
while maintaining the potential for more structured interventions if necessary. This nuanced strategy
reflects a sophisticated understanding of technological governance in a rapidly evolving domain.
#6 POTENTIAL IMPLIMENTAION CHALLENGES:
Coordination and Complexity
The proposed Inter-Ministerial AI Coordination Committee faces significant coordination
challenges. Aligning multiple government departments, sectoral regulators, and stakeholders with
diverse perspectives and priorities will be complex and time-consuming.
Technological Capability Gaps
Establishing the Technical Secretariat requires sophisticated multi-disciplinary expertise. India may
struggle to recruit and retain top-tier talent capable of horizon-scanning, risk assessment, and
technical advisory across rapidly evolving AI domains.
Voluntary Commitment Enforcement
The reliance on voluntary industry commitments lacks strong enforcement mechanisms. Without
clear consequences, companies might provide superficial transparency or avoid substantive self-
regulation.
Ecosystem Mapping Difficulties
Creating a comprehensive map of AI stakeholders and actors will be challenging given the dynamic,
fast-changing nature of AI technologies. The ecosystem's complexity and rapid evolution could
quickly render any mapping outdated.
Resource Constraints
Implementing the proposed governance framework requires significant financial and human
resources. The Technical Secretariat, AI incident database, and cross-ministerial coordination
demand substantial investments.
Balancing Innovation and Regulation
Maintaining a flexible regulatory approach while effectively mitigating risks is inherently
challenging. Too much regulation could stifle innovation, while too little could expose society to
potential AI-related harms.
Data Privacy and Traceability
Establishing technological measures for traceability and content provenance raises complex data
privacy concerns. Implementing these without compromising individual rights will be technically
and legally intricate.
Rapid Technological Evolution
AI's rapid development means governance frameworks can quickly become obsolete. The proposed
approach must be nimble enough to adapt to unforeseen technological advancements.
#7 PROFESSIONAL TONE
Technical Precision
The language demonstrates deep technical understanding, using specialized terminology while
maintaining clarity. Phrases like "techno-legal approach" and "foundation models" reflect
sophisticated technological discourse without unnecessary complexity.
Objective and Analytical Approach
The document maintains a neutral, evidence-based tone. It systematically analyzes AI governance
challenges, presenting findings through structured observations, gap analyses, and
recommendations. The writing avoids emotional language, focusing instead on rational assessment
of risks and opportunities.
Collaborative and Constructive Framing
The tone emphasizes collaborative governance, using inclusive language like "whole-of-
government approach" and highlighting multi-stakeholder engagement. Recommendations are
framed as cooperative solutions rather than punitive measures.
Balanced Regulatory Perspective
The document strikes a nuanced tone between regulatory caution and innovation support. It
acknowledges technological complexity while proposing flexible, adaptive governance
mechanisms.
Academic and Policy-Oriented Language
The writing style mirrors scholarly policy documents - precise, authoritative, and comprehensive. It
uses formal academic constructions, thoroughly explaining concepts and providing contextual
background for each recommendation.
Ethical Consciousness
The tone reflects a strong ethical orientation, consistently referencing principles of fairness,
transparency, and societal benefit. This underpins the professional approach to technological
governance.
Strategic Vision
The language conveys a forward-looking, strategic perspective, demonstrating sophisticated
understanding of emerging technological landscapes and governance challenges.
Sincerely,
[RAINA THAKUR]
