Algorithmic Justice – How Algorithmic Decision-Making In Welfare Delivery, Credit Scoring, And Policing Impacts Equality, Due Process, And Discrimination
- IJLLR Journal
- 8 hours ago
- 1 min read
Rana Sarkar, Department of Law, University of Calcutta
Suzain Ansari, Department of Law, University of Calcutta
Introduction
Algorithmic justice refers to the fairness, accountability, and transparency of algorithmic decision-making systems, especially when they are used in areas that significantly affect people’s lives. Governments, financial institutions, and law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on algorithms to make or support decisions in welfare distribution, credit scoring, and policing. These systems promise efficiency, consistency, and cost reduction. However, real- world experience shows that algorithmic decision-making can also reproduce and amplify social inequalities, weaken due process protections, and result in discriminatory outcomes. Algorithms are not neutral. They are designed by humans, trained on historical data, and deployed within existing social and legal structures. As a result, they often reflect past biases, policy priorities, and structural inequalities. Recent legal cases and public controversies around automated systems highlight the urgent need to examine algorithmic justice carefully. This essay discusses algorithmic justice by separately analyzing its impact on welfare delivery, credit scoring, and policing, and by examining broader concerns related to equality, due process, and discrimination.
Algorithmic Decision-Making in Welfare Delivery
Welfare Automation and the Logic of Efficiency.
Governments increasingly deploy algorithms in welfare administration to manage large beneficiary populations and reduce administrative costs. Automated systems are used for identity verification, eligibility determination, fraud detection, and benefit distribution. From a public policy perspective, this reflects a shift toward managerial governance, where efficiency and quantification are prioritised over discretion and contextual judgment.as in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
