PM IAS EDITORIAL ANALYSIS – DEC 18

The legal gaps in India’s unregulated AI surveillance

AI Surveillance in India: Navigating Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Introduction

The rapid adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in surveillance across India, particularly in policing and governance, marks a transformative era. Initiatives like the world’s largest facial recognition system, AI-powered crime patrols, and plans to launch 50 AI satellites signify the nation’s ambition. However, this unregulated deployment raises critical concerns about legal safeguards, data privacy, and civil liberties under the constitutional framework.

Legal Gaps in AI Surveillance

1. Absence of Comprehensive Legislation
   
   • Unlike global counterparts, India lacks a unified legal framework for AI technologies. While the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 aims to manage data privacy, its broad exemptions—like Section 7(g) and Section 7(i)—grant the government unchecked authority. This legal void exposes citizens to potential misuse of personal data.
   • Provisions like Section 15(c), requiring individuals to avoid suppressing personal data, place disproportionate burdens on citizens, further exacerbating privacy concerns.
2. Privacy vs. Surveillance
   
   • The Supreme Court’s K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) judgment recognizes privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. Yet, India’s expanding surveillance infrastructure lacks proportional safeguards, violating principles like necessity and proportionality.
   • The Telangana Police data breach revealed vulnerabilities in data governance, raising alarms about transparency and accountability in using welfare scheme databases for surveillance.

Lessons from Global Approaches

India can draw lessons from the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which categorizes AI activities into risk-based levels, prohibiting high-risk applications like real-time biometric identification for law enforcement. Contrarily, India’s adoption of AI-powered facial recognition lacks public guidelines, risk assessments, or legislative debate.

Countries like the United States and EU members have enacted regulations ensuring proportional safeguards in surveillance technologies. India’s delay in finalizing the Digital India Act underscores the urgency for similar measures.

Recommendations for a Proactive Framework

1. Risk-Based Categorization
   
   • Adopt a framework like the EU’s, categorizing AI applications based on risk levels to ensure only permissible activities align with constitutional rights.
2. Transparent Data Governance
   
   • Publicly disclose data collection practices, including the type, purpose, and duration of stored data.
   • Mandate independent audits and periodic transparency reports to prevent misuse.
3. Consent Mechanisms and Judicial Oversight
   
   • Introduce specific and narrow exemptions for data processing, subject to effective judicial scrutiny.
   • Ensure that consent mechanisms prioritize individual autonomy and safeguard constitutional rights.
4. Strengthen the DPDPA Framework
   
   • Revise exemptions under the DPDPA to align with privacy principles outlined in the Puttaswamy judgment.
   • Expedite the notification of DPDP Rules to clarify and strengthen procedural safeguards.
5. Capacity Building
   
   • Train law enforcement agencies in ethical AI use, emphasizing proportionality, transparency, and public accountability.

Conclusion

India stands at a pivotal juncture in deploying AI-powered surveillance. While technological advancements in governance hold immense potential, they must be implemented within a robust regulatory framework that prioritizes civil liberties. Safeguards embedded into AI surveillance policies, including judicial oversight, transparency, and consent mechanisms, can uphold citizens’ rights while leveraging AI’s benefits.

A proactive, risk-based regulatory approach will ensure that AI technologies advance public interest without compromising constitutional principles. This balanced integration is essential for India’s AI-driven governance to align with democratic values and international best practices.

Stuck in the classroom — students, teachers, NEP 2020

Higher Education and NEP 2020: Addressing Classroom Overload

Introduction

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 aims to transform India’s higher education landscape. However, its implementation has led to students and faculty spending disproportionately high time in classrooms compared to global counterparts. This has raised concerns about the balance between classroom learning, self-study, and skill development, which are crucial for achieving the policy’s ambitious vision.

Classroom Overload: A Comparative Analysis

Students under NEP 2020’s four-year undergraduate programme are required to take five courses per semester, each involving four hours of lectures per week. This totals 20 classroom hours weekly, far exceeding the 12 hours common in European Union (EU) and North American institutions, where students take four courses per semester with three hours of lectures per course weekly.

This excessive classroom time has the following implications:

• Reduced Self-Learning Opportunities: The lack of time for independent study, reading, and assignments hampers critical thinking and analytical skills development.
• Assessment Constraints: Increased classroom hours limit the scope for diverse assessments such as term papers, group projects, and reflective essays, incentivizing rote learning over conceptual understanding.

Impact on Teachers and Teaching Quality

The high teaching load for Indian faculty—14-16 hours per week—compared to 9 hours per week for their EU and North American counterparts, undermines their ability to:

1. Engage in research.
2. Develop innovative and interdisciplinary courses.
3. Regularly update teaching methodologies.

This disparity impacts the quality of teaching, leaving Indian students at a disadvantage in global education ecosystems.

Continuous Assessment and NEP 2020

The NEP 2020 emphasizes continuous assessment, offering flexibility to blend low and high-stakes assessments. However, increased classroom time restricts this, reducing opportunities for meaningful feedback and adaptive learning. Continuous assessment is vital for:

• Encouraging sustained learning efforts.
• Providing real-time feedback to students and faculty for improved strategies.
• Shifting focus from rote learning to application-based understanding.

Challenges in Implementation

1. Burden on Non-Elite Institutions: While elite institutions like IITs and IIMs have better resources and more flexible teaching schedules, the majority of Indian students are enrolled in public universities and colleges, which lack these advantages.
2. Faculty Workload: Faculty in public institutions must manage all aspects of a course—design, material selection, assessments, and grading—along with heavy classroom schedules, leaving little time for professional growth.

Recommendations for Balanced Learning

1. Reduce Classroom Time: Align classroom hours with global standards, allowing time for independent learning and diverse assessment methods.
2. Restructure Assessment Frameworks: Enable a mix of term papers, group projects, and creative problem-solving activities that promote critical thinking and interdisciplinary learning.
3. Enhance Faculty Support:
   • Reduce teaching hours for faculty to ensure time for research and course development.
   • Provide access to resources for professional growth, ensuring that teaching remains current and innovative.
4. Strengthen Public Universities:
   • Allocate additional funding to improve resources and reduce faculty-student ratios.
   • Train faculty to adopt modern teaching and assessment strategies.

Conclusion

To fully realize the transformative vision of the NEP 2020, it is imperative to revisit and rationalize classroom time, course load, and assessment frameworks. Emphasizing self-study, critical thinking, and diverse assessments will better equip Indian students for higher education and global competitiveness. Additionally, addressing faculty workload and resource gaps, particularly in public universities, is crucial to improving teaching outcomes.

By adopting these measures, India can align its higher education system with global standards, ensuring that its graduates are not only academically competent but also capable of contributing meaningfully to a dynamic and evolving world.