Published On: July 22nd 2026
Authored By: Vijit Raghuwanshi
NLUO
I. Abstract
AI governance is no longer optional, Artificial Intelligence is the future adapting with it is the only plausible choice. Powerful economics are already planning their next laws, AI has already taken over multiple sectors and changed the lives of people in unimaginable ways, European Union is already building comprehensive laws for AI, while the US’s President Mr. Donald Trump is already releasing multiple Executive Orders on AI regulations and China has already made various AI specific laws but India seems to be falling behind, as there is not even a single AI specific binding law till now meanwhile, there are binding laws in the world that are already operational. India in investing thousands of crores in Artificial Intelligence as the consumer base is huge however, is it justified for a country putting millions in AI to not have a single binding statute? This article critically analyses India’s AI strategy and leading nations operational frameworks. What is the current global position on AI governance? Is India’s light touch regulatory approach a calculated strategic choice or a dangerous oversight? Is the absence of binding AI legislation a threat to millions of taxpayers and citizens? Through comparative legal analysis of the European Union, United States and China’s regulatory frameworks, drawing from statutes, government reports, advisories and scholarly opinions — this article attempts to answer these critical questions.
II. Introduction
A clear global consensus is emerging, major economies are no longer treating AI governance as an optional concern. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act entered into force on August 1, 2024 – World’s first comprehensive legal framework for artificial intelligence.[1] In December 2025 United States of America’s President, Donald Trump passed an executive order to establish “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence”.[2] China has multi-layered frameworks for specific national regulations, Including “Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services” to enable oversight inspections, legal responsibility while respecting intellectual property rights and commercial ethics.[3] Artificial Intelligence revolution is accelerating rapidly, there is a global rush towards building a robust AI regulation framework. ChatGPT launched in November 2022, roughly after three years of launch, it has approximately 1 billion monthly active users.[4] The governments of various nations are recognising the immense potential that Artificial Intelligence holds, that can impact various sectors within multiple domains. AI is rapidly transitioning almost every industry from predictive analytics and automation to strategic agentic workflows. At this point it is not a choice whether to build an Artificial Intelligence regulation framework, it is a necessity. The question now revolves around building it swiftly and strictly while keeping the overall framework efficient with respect to the principles of freedom and privacy. It is against this rapidly shifting global backdrop that the position of India deserves to be examined far more closely and more carefully.
III. India’s Paradox
India now ranks 3rd globally in Artificial Intelligence competitiveness behind United States of America and China.[5] Approved by Union Cabinet of India, IndiaAI mission was launched on March 7, 2024, with a financial outlay of ₹10,372 crore- to build a comprehensive indigenous Artificial Intelligence ecosystem and democratize computing access.[6] This clearly demonstrates the serious intent and the importance India is putting towards Artificial Intelligence and other such developments. Despite this ambition India has no single binding AI-specific legislation. Regulatory responses so far are non-binding and advisory in nature. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in short MeitY, unveiled the India AI Governance Guidelines under the IndiaAI Mission however, these guidelines are not binding till date, rather than providing us with this legislation it is increasingly regarded as blueprint for AI legislation.[7] Furthermore, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, while significant, addresses data privacy rather than AI governance specifically.[8] India is simultaneously one of the world’s biggest AI consumers and producers ,Yet its governance framework remains largely aspirational, does this represent a conscious strategic choice or a dangerous oversight? This tension between soaring ambition on the one hand and the absence of any binding statute on the other lies at the very heart of the present discussion, and it is worth restating plainly before the analysis proceeds.
IV. Primary focus
This article primarily examines India’s AI regulations with a comparative legal lens while discussing contemporary frameworks of leading nations with advanced regulatory approaches such as the European Union, United States of America and China and provides a thorough analysis of doctrines and legal strategies the world is using to move forward with AI governance. Drawn from statutes, scholarly opinions, government reports, advisories and data from independent organisations, ensuring a deep understanding and rich reading experience. This article argues that India may not have been entirely inactive, but what it has done may no longer be sufficient. The window for AI regulations might be closing sooner than policymakers realise. With the scope of the inquiry thus clearly defined, the discussion now turns first to the wider global picture, before returning, in due course, to the Indian position itself.
V. Global AI landscape
A. The European Union: A Binding, Rights-Based Framework
To understand where India stands, it is first necessary to set out, one jurisdiction at a time, how the leading economies of the world have chosen to approach this very same question. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act is the first ever comprehensive legal framework for AI, It classifies artificial Intelligence into four categories based on risk – Minimal risk, Limited risk, High risk and lastly Unacceptable. Unacceptable category includes all AI systems considered a clear threat to the safety, livelihood and rights of people and systems falling in this category are completely banned, the prohibitions became active in February, 2025.[9] High risk category includes AI that can pose serious risk to health, safety or fundamental rights, high risk AI systems are subjected to strict obligations before they can be put in market, these systems need high level of robustness, proper risk assessment and appropriate human oversight measures. Limited risk category includes general AI with transparency risk systems falling in this category need to formally make users aware of AI generated content which included clear labels on AI generated pictures and videos and making users aware while talking to chatbots. The European Union’s AI act does not include rules for AI that fall in minimal or no risk category. The primary purpose of the EU AI Act is to foster trustworthy, human-centric Artificial Intelligence, risk-based legal framework.[10] It ensures that AI systems are safe, transparent, non-discriminatory, and respectful of fundamental rights. It ensures the safety of the citizens even if the innovations slow down a bit.
B. The United States: A Decentralised, Innovation-First Model
Turning from the European model to the other side of the Atlantic, a markedly different regulatory philosophy comes into view. The United States of America follows its own unique approach though USA does not have a single comprehensive legal framework for AI governance, USA’s AI governance approach includes evolving patchwork of federal agencies, executive orders by the President and state legislations. The United States approaches Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulation through a decentralized, sector-specific strategy. Rather than a single, sweeping federal law like the EU’s AI Act, existing federal agencies use their current authority to regulate AI usage within their specific domains. US believes in keeping the markets open, innovations active while protecting nation’s security and keeping AI dominance. Executive order 14409 of June 2, 2026 reinforced these core values that further increased AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector information systems and harden them against external threats, and to cultivate US’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.[11]
C. China: Targeted, State-Driven and Scenario-Specific Rules
Moving further eastward, yet another distinct regulatory temperament becomes clearly visible. China regulates artificial intelligence through a framework of targeted, technology-specific measures rather than a single unified statute. Legislation includes the Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services, the Deep Synthesis Provisions, and the Recommendation Algorithms Provisions.[12] This balances innovation with strict state oversight and security furthermore, China updates existing regulatory frameworks to make them applicable for AI. China introduced Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services in the year 2023, China’s first binding regulations specifically targeting public-facing generative AI platforms, which focuses on Training data control – Providers must ensure the legitimacy, safety, and trustworthiness of the training data, minor’s safeguarding, content consistent with core social values, strict labelling and tracing. Recently China ventured into Anthropomorphic AI interaction services by releasing “Interim Measures for the Administration of Anthropomorphic AI Interaction Services” set to take effect from 15th of July 2026, to regulate AI platforms and applications in China that simulate human-like personality traits, thought patterns, and communication styles to engage in emotional interactions and adding anthropomorphic-specific red lines that are strictly prohibited, which includes generating content that encourages, glorifies, or implies self-harm or suicide, or harms users’ physical and mental health, excessively catering to users, inducing emotional dependence or addiction, or damaging real interpersonal relationships and Using emotional manipulation to induce unreasonable user decisions.[13] This demonstrates China’s ability to tackle ongoing active threats by creating specific AI laws. Taken together, these three jurisdictions illustrate that there is no single settled path to AI governance, but rather a spectrum of choices shaped by differing priorities and values.
VI. India’s Framework And approach
Having examined the approaches adopted elsewhere in the world, it now becomes both possible and necessary to look closely at what India itself has actually done. India regulates Artificial Intelligence through a principle-based, techno-legal framework rather than a single law. The government relies on updated existing statutes such as the IT Act, 2000 and the DPDP Act, 2023,[14] supplemented by the India AI Governance Guidelines and judicial protocols. Key compliance and operational rules include,
A. Synthetically Generated Information and Intermediary Obligations
Synthetically Generated Information (SGI): Amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 require social media platforms and intermediaries to label AI-generated deepfakes and misinformation.[15] Intermediaries must remove unlawful synthetic content impersonating individuals within strict, short timeframes.
B. Data Protection and Consent
Data Privacy: Any business training AI models on personal data must adhere to the DPDP Act, requiring explicit user consent and strict data protection safeguards. The governance guidelines mandate a “people first” and “innovation over restraint” philosophy.
C. The India AI Governance Guidelines
On November 5, 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) officially unveiled the India AI Governance Guidelines under the IndiaAI Mission,[16] following the same approach, IT Secretary S. Krishnan explained at the launch, “India has consciously chosen not to lead with regulation but to encourage innovation while studying global approaches. Wherever possible, we will rely on existing laws and frameworks rather than rush into new legislation.”[17] These guidelines are structured in four parts, first and foremost are the seven guiding principle sutras forming the philosophical foundation followed by Key recommendations across six governance pillars, An Action Plan with short-, medium-, and long-term steps and Practical guidelines for industry and regulators on implementation.[18]
VII. Artificial Intelligence and the Judiciary
India is also actively working towards integrating AI with the legal sector. The Supreme Court of India has recently released draft regulations for Artificial Intelligence in courts, 2026, released by the Supreme Court’s AI Committee for public consultation until June 20,[19] would apply to the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals and statutory adjudicatory bodies nationwide. Under the proposed framework, AI may be deployed for legal research, citation verification, drafting assistance, translation, transcription, case management, scheduling, record management and judicial administration. The regulations also encourage the use of AI-powered tools to improve accessibility and assist litigants in navigating court services. This indicates that India is taking actions rapidly while not rushing to one standalone sweeping AI specific law, which is a robust approach for dealing with rapidly advancing technologies. Seen as a whole, therefore, the Indian response has been neither silent nor idle, even if it remains, for the present, largely non-binding in character.
VIII. Comparative analysis
Having set out each of these frameworks separately, the discussion can now place them side by side, so that the contrasts and the similarities between them emerge far more clearly and more usefully. The major four AI hubs United States of America, European Union, China and India each one has their own philosophy. The US focuses on decentralised, innovation first approach and prioritises market competitiveness and security while European Union focuses on right-based binding and comprehensive approach putting citizens protection over innovation speed. China prioritises state controlled security first approach it focuses on social stability and government oversight while keeping innovations active meanwhile, India focuses on principle based techno-legal approach, prioritising innovation while updating existing laws. Among these states India is the only nation without a single binding AI statute, India relies on existing laws unlike EU, US and China who have specific AI regulation instruments. This creates a legal uncertainty for businesses, developers and investors despite these challenges, India is leading in the scale of AI development providing the world with optimised AI development, AI cost-effective and scalable AI solutions that serve billions of users . India is also actively participating in global AI governance forums[20] and the Supreme Court AI draft regulations are ahead of many developed nations. India’s approach is neither a failure nor a success it is a calculated risk based approach that will decide India’s future in AI and related sectors.
IX. Critical assessment
A. The Case for Concern
Drawing the threads of the preceding sections together, it is now possible to weigh the competing considerations and arrive at a more reasoned and balanced assessment. Is India really lagging behind in AI regulations? The answer is not as simple as some might think. India has no binding AI statute despite being the third largest AI economy, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology guidelines come close but they are also non-binding and currently lack enforcement mechanism, there is a lot of legal uncertainty about AI regulations that is hindering more global investment and discouraging businesses and developers. There are governance gaps the current laws are not covering AI specifically, AI scams and deepfakes incidents are happening without proper remedy for victims.
B. The Case for the Light-Touch Approach
Other big AI economies already moving ahead with AI legislations however, the light touch regulations might not be an oversight but a deliberate strategic and conscious choice. With the light touch regulations India avoids EU-like regulations which avoid innovation slowdown, present legal frameworks adequately covers most harm, India’s scale of AI deployment is one of the largest is accompanied by this light touch regulation policy. The Supreme Court’s AI regulation draft represent institutional maturity and active participations in global forums such as Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), and global AI summit this clearly represents global engagement and grave importance towards AI that India is placing.[21]
X. Conclusion
India is not lagging behind it is choosing a different path but, that path has a closing window if India fails to develop AI regulations by 2027 it risks being excluded from global AI governance standard setting. Now, the question is not whether India can regulate AI it’s whether it will do in short time. The path India is choosing has its own unique advantages and disadvantages but that path will surely decide India’s AI future.
XI. References
[1]Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) [2024] OJ L 2024/1689; it entered into force on 1 August 2024.
[2]Exec Order No 14365, ‘Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence’ (11 December 2025).
[3]Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services (People’s Republic of China, Cyberspace Administration of China and six other departments, promulgated 13 July 2023, in force 15 August 2023).
[4]ChatGPT was launched by OpenAI on 30 November 2022 and was reported to have reached approximately one billion monthly active users by June 2026: see ‘ChatGPT Statistics’ (DemandSage, 2026) <https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/> accessed 23 June 2026.
[5]Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Global AI Vibrancy report (2025), in which India was ranked third globally for AI competitiveness, as cited by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in the Lok Sabha (11 February 2026).
[6]Press Information Bureau, ‘Cabinet approves IndiaAI Mission’ (Government of India, 7 March 2024); the Mission was approved with a financial outlay of ₹10,372 crore.
[7]Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, India AI Governance Guidelines (Government of India, November 2025); see also Press Information Bureau, ‘MeitY Unveils India AI Governance Guidelines under IndiaAI Mission’ (5 November 2025).
[8]Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (Act 22 of 2023).
[9]Artificial Intelligence Act (n 1) art 5, which prohibits ‘unacceptable risk’ practices, and art 113, under which those prohibitions became applicable from 2 February 2025.
[10]European Commission, ‘AI Act’ (Shaping Europe’s Digital Future) <https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai> accessed 23 June 2026.
[11]Exec Order No 14409, ‘Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security’ (2 June 2026).
[12]Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services (n 3); Administrative Provisions on Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services (PRC, in force 10 January 2023); and Provisions on the Administration of Algorithm-generated Recommendations for Internet Information Services (PRC, in force 1 March 2022).
[13]Interim Measures for the Administration of Anthropomorphic AI Interaction Services (PRC, Cyberspace Administration of China and others, issued 10 April 2026, to take effect on 15 July 2026).
[14]Information Technology Act 2000 (Act 21 of 2000); Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (n 8).
[15]Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, as amended by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2026, introducing labelling and traceability obligations for synthetically generated information.
[16]India AI Governance Guidelines (n 7).
[17]As reported in Saikrishna & Associates, ‘Decoding the India AI Governance Guidelines’ <https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/decoding-the-india-ai-governance-guidelines/> accessed 23 June 2026.
[18]India AI Governance Guidelines (n 7); the framework is organised around seven guiding principles (sutras) and six pillars of governance.
[19]Supreme Court of India, Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 (Notice dated 3 June 2026, open for public comments until 20 June 2026).
[20]India is a founding member of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), launched on 15 June 2020.
[21]Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (n 20); see also the India–AI Impact Summit 2026 held at Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi.
