DIGITAL TWINS AND INDIAN LAW

Abstract

Several industries from healthcare to urban planning are expanding their spectrums to virtual replicas of physical assets, systems, and even individuals. These are what we can refer to as “digital twins”. The tools used in these activities are transformative and often powered by real-time data and AI algorithms. These models can simulate, predict, and optimize real-world experiences. The performance of these tools is based on the advancement of technology. However, their increasing use of these digital AI tools raises numerous questions on issues such as their positive impacts, the challenges that are posed by excessive use of such tools, their ownership, liability and even privacy of individuals. In a country like India, there are often times when technology outpaces regulations. This article explores the legal framework of Indian laws paired with the concept of digital twins. It also identifies gaps in existing laws such as the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, examining issues around intellectual property, cross-border data flows, and jurisdiction. The Indian case laws on privacy and technology regulation, constitutes the statutes that help us compare global approaches like the EU’s AI Act. It proposes a legal roadmap to ensure that innovation in digital twin technology does not come at the cost of individual rights, security, or accountability.

Introduction

The digital twin is a real-world replica of certain assets, objects, processes and people. These are updated with real-time data to keep pace with the advancements in the behavioral dynamics of these inputs. The primary purpose is to reflect the demeanor of their counterparts. This technology was first used in aerospace and manufacturing, but is now getting expanded to various other fields such as healthcare, education, city planning, and even personal digital profiles.

The 5G connectivity is a growth of digital structure in India. Additionally, AI innovation creates fertile grounds for the use of digital twins. This has turned the object of digital use in healthcare sector by modernization of dynamics by encouraging predictive diagnostics of patients. Cities also have digital models to manage traffic or pollution. Yet, these possibilities carry inherent risks. The question about the ownership of data is rising. If a digital twin makes an erroneous decision causing harm, the question about who holds the liability is also on the rise. The doubt about the jurisdiction of the court if the data is processed overseas is something to give a thought on.

The Indian Legal Landscape

1. Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)

The IT Act governs electronic records, cybercrimes, and intermediary liability. While it provides certain safeguards for data breaches and hacking, it does not address AI-specific liability or the legal status of digital replicas.[1]

2. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA)

This recent law focuses on personal data privacy, consent requirements, and data processing obligations. For digital twins, especially those mirroring human profiles, compliance with consent and processing norms is crucial. However, the Act does not resolve issues like intellectual property in the twin itself or the responsibility for algorithmic errors.[2]

3. Intellectual Property Laws

Copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957 may protect certain digital models,[3] while patents could apply to processes generating digital twins. Yet, ambiguity remains on ownership: does the creator of the twin holds exclusive rights, or does the subject of the data have a share in ownership?[4]

4. Absence of AI-Specific Regulation

India’s draft National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (NITI Aayog, 2018) and recent AI advisory frameworks discuss responsible AI but have yet to translate into enforceable laws.[5]

Key Challenges

1. Data Ownership and Consent

If a hospital creates a digital twin of a patient, is the data owned by the patient, the hospital, or the software provider? Indian law currently grants ownership rights indirectly through privacy laws but lacks explicit provisions for derivative digital assets.

2. Privacy and Surveillance Risks

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.[6] Digital twins, especially those of individuals, can store intimate behavioral and biometric data, raising risks of mass surveillance and profiling.[7]

3. Liability for Harm Caused by Autonomous Decisions

If a city’s traffic management twin malfunctions and causes accidents, determining whether liability lies with the municipal authority, the software developer, or the data provider becomes complex.

4. Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Data Processing

Digital twins often rely on cloud services hosted overseas. As seen in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, jurisdictional issues in online activity remain contested in Indian jurisprudence.

5. Intellectual Property Conflicts

Disputes may arise over whether a digital twin of a physical machine infringes design patents, or whether the twin itself can be patented.

Case Law Insights Relevant to Digital Twin Regulation

1. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Privacy is a constitutional right, imposing a duty on the State and private actors to protect personal data.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): While primarily about free speech, the case underscores jurisdictional and intermediary liability concerns in cyberspace.[8]
3. Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries (2020): Addresses intermediary responsibilities, relevant to digital twin hosting platforms.[9]
4. Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India (2017): Concerns data sharing between Whatsapp and Facebook, highlighting the limits of consent agreements.[10]

Comparatively International Perspectives

1. European Union: The proposed AI Act introduces risk-based classification of AI systems, with strict obligations for high-risk uses, which could apply to digital twins in healthcare or critical infrastructure.[11]
2. United States: While lacking a federal AI law, sector-specific guidelines address autonomous systems in transportation and defence.[12]
3. Lessons for India: India could adopt a hybrid approach, combining EU-style classification with sectoral codes of practice.

Proposed Legal Framework for India

1. Explicit Recognition of Digital Twins in Law: Amend the IT Act or create a standalone AI regulation to define digital twins and their legal status.
2. Ownership Rights Framework: Specify whether rights reside with the data subject, the creator, or both.
3. Algorithmic Accountability: Introduce statutory provisions assigning liability for harm caused by autonomous decisions.[13]
4. Jurisdictional Clarity: Extend Indian courts’ jurisdiction over harm caused by digital twins used in India, even if hosted abroad.
5. Mandatory Transparency: Require disclosure of data sources, algorithms, and usage limitations.

Conclusion

Digital twins are no longer just a futuristic concept, they are quietly becoming part of our everyday systems, from how a hospital treats patients to how a city manages its traffic. The technology has enormous potential to make our lives better, faster, and more efficient. But like any powerful tool, if it is left completely unregulated, it can easily be misused. The truth is, in India, our laws are still catching up. We have strong privacy protections in theory after Puttaswamy, and we have new data protection rules, but none of them were written with something as unique as a “digital twin” in mind. This means that if something goes wrong, if a person’s twin is hacked, if wrong data leads to harm, or if a twin is used without permission, there’s no direct law that clearly tells us who is responsible or what happens next. Countries like those in the EU are already making laws that directly deal with AI and high-risk digital systems. India cannot afford to wait until there is a major scandal or crisis before taking action. The technology will only become more common, not less. If we plan ahead and create a legal framework now, we can make sure that digital twins grow in a way that protects both innovation and human rights. This is not just a legal challenge, it is also a moral one. A digital twin of a person is not just data, it’s a reflection of their identity, health, and even emotions in some cases. Mishandling that is not just a breach of privacy, it can be a deep personal harm. The law must recognize this sensitivity and respond accordingly.

In simple words, India has two paths. One, we can let digital twin technology grow without clear rules, risking harm, confusion, and loss of trust. Two, we can take the smarter path, use this moment to set fair rules, protect people’s rights, and still allow businesses and innovators to use this technology responsibly. The second path is not only possible but necessary if we want the benefits without the risks. If India creates these laws now, focusing on ownership rights, liability rules, transparency, and jurisdiction, it will not only protect its citizens but also become a leader in responsible tech regulation. The world is watching how different countries handle AI and its spin-off technologies. By acting early and thoughtfully, India can set an example that blends progress with protection. In the end, digital twins should be a tool for good, for saving lives, making cities smarter, and helping industries grow, not a tool for exploitation or harm. Lawmakers, tech experts, and citizens all need to work together to make sure that’s the path we take. The time to act is now, before the technology runs far ahead of the law.

References

[1] Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)

[2] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India)

[3] Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India)

[4] Patents Act, 1970, No. 39, Acts of Parliament, 1970 (India)

[5] NITI Aayog, National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (2018)

[6] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India)

[7] Id.

[8] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2-15) 5 SCC 1 (India)

[9] Google India Pvt. Ltd. V. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162 (India)

[10] Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India, (2017) 8 SCC 172 (India)

[11] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonized Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), COM (2021) 206 final

[12] U.S. Department of Transportation, Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (2018)

[13] See generally European Commission, White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: A European Approach to Excellence and Trust, COM (2020) 65 final