Civil society, industry question lack of clear accountability in MeitY's AI governance report

The report was released on January 6

Industry and civil society groups have raised concerns over weak accountability mechanisms in the Indian government’s proposed AI governance framework, calling for stronger oversight provisions in their submissions to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

The subcommittee on AI Governance Guidelines Development, formed under MeitY’s multi-stakeholder advisory group and chaired by the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA), released its draft report on January 6, 2025.

The report proposes a principle-based approach to AI governance, emphasising risk assessment, voluntary commitments, and a coordination mechanism for regulatory oversight.

However, stakeholder responses highlight a common concern: the absence of clear enforcement mechanisms and accountability provisions for AI developers and deployers.

The Business Software Alliance (BSA), which represents major global tech firms such as Microsoft, Adobe and IBM, said that it supported a risk-based framework but warns that broad voluntary commitments without clearly defined responsibilities could lead to regulatory ambiguity.

Civil society groups such as Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC.in) took a stronger stance, arguing that self-regulation was inadequate and instead called for legally binding AI accountability provisions.

IFF criticised the government’s overreliance on voluntary compliance, warning that corporate-driven ethics frameworks could dilute public interest protections. SFLC.in flagged concerns over AI-driven surveillance, urging independent oversight of government AI deployments, particularly facial recognition and predictive policing systems.

The BSA said, "Despite recognising their different roles, the draft report could benefit from more clearly allocating responsibilities for relevant actors. For instance, the draft report can reflect the different roles of developers and deployers when conducting assessments."

IFF in its submission said, "The draft report enumerates principles—transparency, accountability, safety, privacy, non-discrimination, human-centered values, inclusivity, and ‘digital by design’—but provides scant detail on how they will be enforced. Past global efforts reveal that without practical guidelines, tools, and statutory mandates, these concepts remain aspirational."

Lastly, SFLC.in said, "The self-regulation model, as proposed in the report, depends on the internal accountability of the firms deploying AI systems without governmental oversight. Hence, it needs to be adopted with restraint and nuance. Where independent enforcement mechanisms are not required by appropriate legislation, there is a lack of accountability, facilitating companies to prioritize profit motives over ethical considerations such as transparency, fairness, and safeguarding public interests."