India Must Design Sovereign AI Framework Rather Than Replicate US Pact, Industry Experts Urge
Industry leaders and policy analysts have urged New Delhi to formulate a distinct artificial intelligence safety framework tailored to the nation's unique linguistic diversity, scale, and application-driven ecosystem rather than directly mirroring voluntary overseas accords. The appeal follows the September 29 signing of the White House Accord on Super Intelligence by top executives from major technology firms and United States leadership.
Under the voluntary White House accord signed September 29, tech firms committed to internal monitoring, dedicated oversight teams, external audits, and regular standard-setting meetings. Gnani.ai CEO Ganesh Gopalan advocated for voluntary self-regulation, stating mandatory regulation risks stifling competition, and asserted India needs over 100 frontier AI labs to avoid lagging in the AI race.
Industry participants emphasize that while voluntary self-policing frameworks offer a starting point, they remain inadequate for governing fast-evolving digital models without legally binding safeguards.
Tailoring Frameworks to National Realities
Indian industry executives note that the domestic technology landscape differs markedly from Western markets, focusing heavily on applied software and localized services rather than foundational model development. Nasscom Chairman and Fractal Group CEO Srikanth Velamakanni argued that domestic regulations must account for linguistic multiplicity across vernacular languages. Grant Thornton Bharat partner Amit Khanna added that safety mandates must prevent the exploitation of technology knowledge asymmetries among the broader population, stressing that compliance structures should integrate smoothly with existing legal instruments such as the Information Technology Amendment Rules.
Rules governing legal liability when AI systems fail, such as incorrect clinical diagnoses or erroneous welfare denials, remain a critical unaddressed legislative gap in India. Amit Khanna stated that establishing legal liability rules when AI systems fail, including misdiagnosing patients or wrongly denying welfare benefits, represents a critical statutory gap in India.
Experts remain divided on whether self-regulation alone can suffice. While some stakeholders warn that heavy statutory pre-release certification requirements could stifle early-stage innovation and burden domestic labs, others contend that robust legal accountability is essential to prevent severe societal disruption.
Governance Models and Ecosystem Accountability
Discussions around regulatory architecture contrast the self-regulatory push of the United States with the European Union's risk-based legal approach and China's state-directed model. Counterpoint Research principal analyst Soumen Mandal advocated for a hybrid strategy where mandatory compliance applies strictly to high-stakes sectors including banking, healthcare, defense, and public governance, while voluntary standards govern rapidly advancing technical areas.
industry stakeholders concurred that governance structures must extend far beyond artificial intelligence developers. Velamakanni stated that civil society organizations, academic researchers, enterprise deployers, and public sector agencies should all maintain formal channels for reporting operational harms and evaluating model safety.
Addressing Systemic and Individual Harms
Discussions on regulatory priorities identified both catastrophic technological risks and immediate civil threats as primary concerns. Velamakanni highlighted systemic hazards including large-scale cyberattacks, electoral interference, and autonomous system failures as top-tier threats. Meanwhile, executives pointed to deepfakes, financial fraud, and political misinformation as immediate, pervasive risks requiring strict enforcement.
The Indian government continues to evaluate formal statutory updates. Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw and IT Secretary S Krishnan have previously indicated that while existing legal provisions have addressed initial synthetic media challenges, an overarching regulatory framework is under active consideration as the digital landscape evolves.
Soumen Mandal noted that independent pre-deployment testing and audits are necessary because commercial companies may otherwise overlook AI-related safety and privacy concerns. IT Secretary S Krishnan stated that conversations regarding additional AI regulation have commenced and indicated that 'the time is getting right' to begin framing legislation.