Earlier this month, the Government of India’s high-level committee on AI governance—formed under the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) and supported by the IndiaAI Mission—released its much-anticipated India AI Governance Guidelines. Alongside this, the committee made a significant policy call: India will not introduce a dedicated artificial intelligence law at this stage.
This decision, endorsed at the inter-ministerial level, shapes the future of AI regulation in one of the world’s fastest-growing digital economies.
A High-Level Committee with a Broad Mandate
The committee comprises senior government secretaries, policy experts, technologists, legal scholars, and representatives from key ministries. It was tasked with evaluating global AI regulations, identifying risks unique to India, and recommending an approach suited to the country’s economic and technological realities.
Its mandate was intentionally expansive:
-
Assess the need for a standalone AI law
-
Recommend institutional mechanisms
-
Lay out principles for safe, inclusive, and responsible AI adoption
-
Propose a multi-layered governance roadmap
After reviewing sectoral risks, international models, and public feedback, the committee concluded that a new AI law is not necessary right now.
Why No New Law? The Rationale
The committee’s reasoning is nuanced and pragmatic.
India already has a strong base of laws that can be adapted to govern AI’s emerging risks—the IT Act, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, consumer protection norms, cybersecurity rules, and criminal law provisions. According to the committee, much of the harm associated with AI can be addressed through targeted amendments, sectoral guidelines, and regulatory oversight—without introducing a rigid, overarching statute.
The panel also cautioned against premature or overly prescriptive legislation, especially in a landscape where AI technologies evolve faster than traditional lawmaking cycles. Instead, the focus is on a phased, evidence-driven regulatory approach built on seven core principles: trust, people-first design, fairness, accountability, explainability, safety, and responsible innovation.
How India’s Approach Compares Internationally
India’s decision stands in contrast to other major jurisdictions.
The EU AI Act takes a hard regulatory stance with risk classifications and strict compliance obligations. The US, meanwhile, relies on sector-led guidance, executive orders, and voluntary safety commitments rather than a single AI law. China has opted for tight, state-driven controls through rules on recommendation algorithms, deepfakes, and generative AI services. Against this backdrop, India’s framework sits somewhere in the middle—flexible like the US, but principles-led and state-coordinated like the EU model, and pragmatic enough to avoid early over-regulation like China’s phased rollout. This blend reflects India’s priority: protecting innovation velocity while keeping a regulatory scaffold ready for future tightening if needed.
What This Means for GCCs
For India’s rapidly expanding Global Capability Centre (GCC) ecosystem, this decision brings clarity and breathing room.
GCCs building AI-led innovation for global enterprises—across BFSI, healthcare, retail, engineering, and digital operations—can continue developing and deploying AI solutions without navigating a new layer of statutory complexity. The framework’s flexibility supports experimentation, prototyping, and scale, while still ensuring accountability and citizen safety.
In essence, India is signalling that it is pro-innovation but not laissez-faire.
A “Not Now” Rather Than a “Not Ever”
Importantly, the committee has left the door open for future legislation. If risks escalate or evidence shows that existing laws cannot keep pace, India may consider a standalone AI law later.
For now, however, India is choosing governance over codification, prioritising adaptability over early regulation. And for the GCC ecosystem and Startups, this balanced, forward-looking approach may be exactly what the next decade of digital transformation needs.
In our opinion, a premature AI law could have slowed India down. This phased, principle-led model may be the only way to keep pace with a technology that evolves faster than policy ever can.
