<p>Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (<a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/ai">AI</a>) has evolved into a major industry, attracting trillions of dollars in market capitalisation and venture capital investment. On December 18, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/us">US </a>House of Representatives, in a 221-196 vote, passed the SPEED (Standardising Permitting and Expediting Economic Development) Act. The legislation proposes significant changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The law aims to institutionalise and ease the federal permitting procedure to build AI infrastructure.</p><p>The increased adoption of AI, manufacturing reshoring, and ongoing electrification of the US economy are leading to increased demand for energy. The move intends to strengthen the American Energy + Artificial Intelligence (AE+AI) formula. The Bill was lobbied with the support of tech giants, hoping that an enabling legislation could rapidly expand and modernise its electric grid to meet surging demand from AI, data centres, and advanced manufacturing.</p><p>A day before the SPEED Act was passed in the US, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s Lok Sabha Member of Parliament Bharti Pardhi introduced a Private Member’s Bill, the Artificial Intelligence (Ethics and Accountability) Bill, 2025, in Parliament. The preamble of the Bill reads that it is a Bill to establish an ethics and accountability framework for the use of AI technologies in decision-making, surveillance, and algorithmic systems to prevent misuse and ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.</p>.AI and copyright: One licence, many problems.<p>The Bill proposes that the Union government shall establish an ethics committee for AI to develop and recommend ethical guidelines for AI technologies, monitor compliance with ethical standards in AI systems, and review cases of misuse. The Bill explicitly says that the use of AI in surveillance shall be limited to lawful purposes with prior approval of the committee.</p><p>This is a shift towards a new phase of regulation, ethical scrutiny, approval, and disclosures. The Bill could be the first regulatory step towards affixing liability, as it states that whoever violates the provisions of this Act shall be liable to a fine which may extend up to Rs 5 crore, depending on the severity of the violation, and suspension or revocation of licenses for deploying AI systems.</p>.<p>This framework signals a decisive shift of AI from a sandbox approach to regulated public infrastructure and accountability. Transparency and accountability of AI developers in terms of data sources and methodologies used for training algorithms, regulatory audits, etc., is also a signal that legally opaque black box AI systems are nearing obsolescence. The Bill is also to be read with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, regulations around the RBI and SEBI, Indian space policy, IT rules, competition law, consumer law, and banking laws, among others.</p><p>While the Bill represents a welcome move towards regulatory transition in India, it suffers from several structural shortcomings. The provision empowering the committee to grant prior approval for ‘lawful purposes’ remains vague, as the scope of what constitutes a lawful purpose is neither clearly defined nor easily capable of legislative fixation, given its evolving nature. The Bill also requires greater clarity on the role of human oversight, and a more explicit linkage with law enforcement agencies to ensure effective compliance and detection of violations.</p><p>Unlike the SPEED Act, it fails to prescribe clear timelines, undermining procedural efficiency. Further, institutional co-ordination could be strengthened by formally integrating specialised regulators, such as the proposed data protection board under the DPDPA. Drawing from the EU model, the introduction of a risk-based classification framework for AI systems, adapted to India’s developmental and innovation ecosystem, would enhance regulatory precision while addressing the needs of domestic developers.</p><p>Regulation should not be viewed as antithetical to value creation. Accountability does not stifle innovation, but instead it fosters trust, legal certainty, and long-term investor confidence. The Bill’s proposal to mandate a committee to formulate ethical guidelines for AI technologies and oversee compliance marks an important normative shift in India’s approach to AI governance.</p><p>It is also important to remember that since Independence, only 14 private member bills have been passed by Parliament. So, the future of this Bill remains uncertain, and the chances of it coming alive remain bleak. Whether the Bill ultimately becomes law, and whether the committee is effectively constituted, will determine the substantive value and enforceability of these ethical standards. Nonetheless, even with its structural limitations, the Bill represents a timely intervention. It reflects a growing convergence between the expectations of developers seeking regulatory clarity and consumers demanding accountability, transparency, and trust in AI systems.</p><p><em><strong>Adithya Variath is Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, and Fellow, Centre for International Legal Studies, O P Jindal Global University.</strong></em></p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
<p>Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (<a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/ai">AI</a>) has evolved into a major industry, attracting trillions of dollars in market capitalisation and venture capital investment. On December 18, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/us">US </a>House of Representatives, in a 221-196 vote, passed the SPEED (Standardising Permitting and Expediting Economic Development) Act. The legislation proposes significant changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The law aims to institutionalise and ease the federal permitting procedure to build AI infrastructure.</p><p>The increased adoption of AI, manufacturing reshoring, and ongoing electrification of the US economy are leading to increased demand for energy. The move intends to strengthen the American Energy + Artificial Intelligence (AE+AI) formula. The Bill was lobbied with the support of tech giants, hoping that an enabling legislation could rapidly expand and modernise its electric grid to meet surging demand from AI, data centres, and advanced manufacturing.</p><p>A day before the SPEED Act was passed in the US, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s Lok Sabha Member of Parliament Bharti Pardhi introduced a Private Member’s Bill, the Artificial Intelligence (Ethics and Accountability) Bill, 2025, in Parliament. The preamble of the Bill reads that it is a Bill to establish an ethics and accountability framework for the use of AI technologies in decision-making, surveillance, and algorithmic systems to prevent misuse and ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.</p>.AI and copyright: One licence, many problems.<p>The Bill proposes that the Union government shall establish an ethics committee for AI to develop and recommend ethical guidelines for AI technologies, monitor compliance with ethical standards in AI systems, and review cases of misuse. The Bill explicitly says that the use of AI in surveillance shall be limited to lawful purposes with prior approval of the committee.</p><p>This is a shift towards a new phase of regulation, ethical scrutiny, approval, and disclosures. The Bill could be the first regulatory step towards affixing liability, as it states that whoever violates the provisions of this Act shall be liable to a fine which may extend up to Rs 5 crore, depending on the severity of the violation, and suspension or revocation of licenses for deploying AI systems.</p>.<p>This framework signals a decisive shift of AI from a sandbox approach to regulated public infrastructure and accountability. Transparency and accountability of AI developers in terms of data sources and methodologies used for training algorithms, regulatory audits, etc., is also a signal that legally opaque black box AI systems are nearing obsolescence. The Bill is also to be read with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, regulations around the RBI and SEBI, Indian space policy, IT rules, competition law, consumer law, and banking laws, among others.</p><p>While the Bill represents a welcome move towards regulatory transition in India, it suffers from several structural shortcomings. The provision empowering the committee to grant prior approval for ‘lawful purposes’ remains vague, as the scope of what constitutes a lawful purpose is neither clearly defined nor easily capable of legislative fixation, given its evolving nature. The Bill also requires greater clarity on the role of human oversight, and a more explicit linkage with law enforcement agencies to ensure effective compliance and detection of violations.</p><p>Unlike the SPEED Act, it fails to prescribe clear timelines, undermining procedural efficiency. Further, institutional co-ordination could be strengthened by formally integrating specialised regulators, such as the proposed data protection board under the DPDPA. Drawing from the EU model, the introduction of a risk-based classification framework for AI systems, adapted to India’s developmental and innovation ecosystem, would enhance regulatory precision while addressing the needs of domestic developers.</p><p>Regulation should not be viewed as antithetical to value creation. Accountability does not stifle innovation, but instead it fosters trust, legal certainty, and long-term investor confidence. The Bill’s proposal to mandate a committee to formulate ethical guidelines for AI technologies and oversee compliance marks an important normative shift in India’s approach to AI governance.</p><p>It is also important to remember that since Independence, only 14 private member bills have been passed by Parliament. So, the future of this Bill remains uncertain, and the chances of it coming alive remain bleak. Whether the Bill ultimately becomes law, and whether the committee is effectively constituted, will determine the substantive value and enforceability of these ethical standards. Nonetheless, even with its structural limitations, the Bill represents a timely intervention. It reflects a growing convergence between the expectations of developers seeking regulatory clarity and consumers demanding accountability, transparency, and trust in AI systems.</p><p><em><strong>Adithya Variath is Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, and Fellow, Centre for International Legal Studies, O P Jindal Global University.</strong></em></p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
