We should not create specific laws for new technologies when general legal principles will suffice. Recently, a government task force recommended applying existing legal provisions to AI, but this approach may not address AI’s unique aspects, such as personhood and liability in autonomous systems. The complexity of AI decisions, especially in impactful areas like criminal sentencing, necessitates a tailored regulatory framework that balances accuracy with explainability, challenging the notion of applying traditional legal principles to AI regulation.

There is a need for accurate, real-time court reporting by professional journalists. At present we are relying on lawyers’ live tweets that cannot be expected to be unbiased and factual public information. We need to make changes to enable this institutionally.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has banned regulated entities from providing services related to virtual currencies, citing concerns over consumer protection, market integrity, and money laundering. I question the necessity of this step, since the perceived anonymity of bitcoin transactions can be penetrated. What’s more, the ban may drive nefarious activities further underground, making them harder to detect. I suggest improving forensic skills might be a more effective approach.

The internet, originally designed for data collection and surveillance, faces a credibility crisis due to its misuse for manipulating public opinion. Its origins trace back to Hollerith’s punch card tabulators, which evolved into a government surveillance tool. Despite historical protests against its potential for “computerized people manipulation,” the internet’s utility has consistently outweighed concerns, leading to its current indispensable status. Yet, recent scandals like Facebook-Cambridge Analytica highlight ongoing tensions between its benefits and the risks of data misuse.

The draft Digital Information Security in Healthcare Act aims to regulate the use of digital health data, emphasizing patient consent and privacy. It allows anonymized data for public health research but restricts commercial use. However, its timing is questionable, as it precedes the anticipated overarching national data protection framework, potentially leading to inconsistencies in privacy regulations across sectors.

There is no need for India to adopt GDPR-like data protection laws as it will hinder local innovation. Historically speaking countries took their time to arrive at a standardised approach to IP law and we need to follow a similar approach - taking a tailored approach to data regulation that balances protection with fostering its burgeoning data industry.

That consent to the Facebook privacy policy could be used as a defence against the consequences of the Cambridge Analytica incident is an indication that consent cannot be our primary safeguard. The accountability framework is the only effective alternative to consent.

Complexity is the friction of the legal system. We need to simplify the entire legal system - making it more accessible and less mysterious. The reason we have not been able to achieve this is because unlike all other industries, lawyers exercise 360-degree control over every facet of the legal industry and protect the profession from disruption.

The Supreme Court has held that right to live with dignity includes within it the obligation to smoothen the process of dying for terminally ill patients who have no hope of recovery but has imposed too many bureaucratic processes on the exercise of that right.

The Delhi High court has held that rejecting an insurance claim on the grounds of the genetic conditions exclusion issued by the IRDAI would be violative of violative of Article 14 since discrimination on the basis of genetic heritage is unconstitutional.