Human Rights Dimensions: Towards Constitutional Accountability In Automated Decision-Making
- IJLLR Journal
- Jun 12
- 2 min read
Dr. Inderjit Kumar, Associate Professor, CT Institute of Law, Jalandhar, Punjab
Ms. Mehak Ahuja, LL.M. (UGC), Director – HR & Legal, Vienna IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mohali, Punjab
ABSTRACT
Automated Decision-Making (ADM) systems—ranging from welfare- distribution algorithms and predictive-policing tools to credit-scoring models— have become central to contemporary governance, reshaping interactions between the State, market, and citizen. In India, digital infrastructures such as Aadhaar and the Telangana Integrated People Information Hub illustrate how ADM mediates access to essential rights. When flawed, these systems inflict systemic harms: biometric mismatches denying welfare entitlements infringe Article 21’s guarantee of life and livelihood, while algorithmic bias in hiring or credit allocation entrenches structural inequality, violating Article 14’s equality guarantee. The opacity of commercial ADM further undermines due process under Article 19(1)(g).
International human-rights instruments—including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011)—affirm that technological innovation must remain subordinate to human dignity. Indian constitutional jurisprudence, notably Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, extends these values to digital governance through doctrines of fairness, privacy, and proportionality. Yet domestic statutes such as the Information Technology Act (2000) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) lack safeguards for transparency, explainability, and human review. In contrast, European frameworks—Article 22 of the GDPR and the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (2024)—establish comprehensive, risk-based regulatory standards.
This paper argues that ADM in India must be governed by a rights-based accountability framework integrating Articles 14, 19, and 21 with judicial precedent and international norms. It advances institutional reforms for ex ante oversight and human-centred algorithmic governance, contending that in a constitutional democracy technological systems must remain accountable to the law—ensuring that algorithms serve people, not the reverse.
"When artificial intelligence systems are opaque, are prone to error and bias, or are deployed without proper human rights due diligence, they become a threat to human dignity."
— Michelle Bachelet, Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
