HIGHLIGHTS

Rajeev Chandrasekhar advocates for a modern legal framework that replaces the outdated IT Act, focusing on both AI and the internet.

He emphasizes the need for actionable steps following current governmental discussions on AI regulations.

Chandrasekhar expresses his opposition to the establishment of a dedicated AI regulator, favoring an enhanced legal framework and the existing judicial system over creating new bureaucracies.

At the ET Now Business Conclave 2025, former Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar delivered a compelling address on India’s journey regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI), highlighting significant advancements and the pressing necessity for governance amid the rapid proliferation of AI technologies. Over the past two years, he emphasized, India has seen remarkable strides in adopting and applying AI, yet the landscape brings forward serious concerns regarding its misuse.

When queried about the timing and necessity for AI regulations, Chandrasekhar pointed out that the current IT Act, which governs technology in India, is more than 25 years old, failing to encompass regulations that cater to the modern complexities of the internet and AI.

“Candidly, I believe we need a new legal framework. The IT Act doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of the internet or Artificial Intelligence. When an Act does not address the two major phenomena influencing our lives and shaping our digital economy, it is evident that we require a contemporary legal framework designed to meet our current needs,” he remarked.

Furthermore, he conveyed that discussions concerning AI regulations are already taking place within governmental circles. “The dialogue around AI regulations has unfolded within the government. I earnestly hope that this momentum leads to actionable outcomes, resulting in new legislation or a series of laws that tackle the myriad issues of safety and risks encountered in the online domain,” he expressed.

Is there a necessity for an AI regulator in India?

In response to the possibility of India needing a specific AI regulatory body, Chandrasekhar answered, “I believe we shouldn’t require another regulatory body or additional layers of oversight. The existing laws should suffice. Moreover, we have a court system capable of handling appeals, which should be adequate on its own. This is my personal perspective, though opinions may vary regarding the establishment of regulatory institutions.”

He elaborated, stating, “As an individual, I wouldn’t endorse the creation of yet another governing body. Envision a brilliant 25-year-old innovator producing groundbreaking advancements—subjecting them to tedious bureaucratic procedures under new regulators does not seem constructive at all.”

This sentiment reflects an underlying belief that imposing additional layers of regulation may stifle innovation rather than promote it. The focus, Chandrasekhar argues, should shift toward creating laws that are agile and adaptable to the rapid changes brought by AI and the digital ecosystem, rather than forming new regulatory bodies that add to an already complex bureaucratic system.

Chandrasekhar’s thoughts resonate with many who have witnessed the challenges posed by outdated legal frameworks in the rapidly evolving technological landscape. As AI continues to integrate itself into various domains, from healthcare to finance, the necessity for effective governance becomes increasingly crucial—not only to harness its potential but also to protect citizens from potential harms associated with its misuse.