Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming an important component of modern society. AI is being used in every field, be it education, corporate jobs, the health care system, the legal system, or administrative systems. While AI is being used to improve various fields, it also raises concerns regarding Human Rights. Automated decision-making, facial recognition, large-scale data processing, and algorithmic profiling may interfere with Human Rights like privacy, equality, human dignity, and freedom of expression. One of the difficulties of AI is that it may show bias toward the knowledge it has been fed, which may give outcomes of such a kind that will be difficult to understand by the person or individual seeking its help. This article examines the relationship between AI and human rights through an analysis of international human rights principles, Indian laws, and judicial precedents. Particular attention is given to the rights to privacy, equality, dignity, and effective remedy. AI should adopt a human-rights-centered approach based on transparency, accountability, privacy, and effective remedies. The article concludes that technological innovation and human rights protection need not be competing. Rather, to develop such governance that ensures technological development remains consistent with constitutional values and international human rights standards.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Privacy, Human Dignity, Equality, AI Governance, Algorithmic Bias.

1.Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved from a specialized area of technology to a powerful force affecting both individual and societal decision-making. With significant social and economic benefits, AI is being used more and more to analyze personal data, evaluate risks, suggest job candidates, identify fraud, support medical diagnoses, and aid in government decision-making. However, the capacity of AI to process enormous volumes of data and generate predictions on its own raises grave concerns about human rights abuses. Because AI functions within a social context and the data it uses is shaped by human inputs, potentially incorporating preexisting social injustices and biases into algorithmic systems, the relationship between technology and human rights is crucial. According to UNESCO, AI may replicate or exacerbate these prejudices if it is not designed and implemented responsibly, jeopardizing equality, human rights, and dignity.[1] AI specifically affects some rights, such as the right to privacy, which is threatened by massive data collection; individual liberty and autonomy, which are compromised by facial recognition and predictive monitoring; and the right to a fair trial, which is jeopardized by opaque algorithmic decision-making. The question is not just whether AI should be outlawed or banned, but also how its advancement and application can be in line with contemporary human rights norms.

1.2. Research Questions

How does the use of Artificial Intelligence affect fundamental human rights?

What legal protections are available against AI-related violations of privacy, equality, and human dignity?

How have India, UNESCO, and the European Union approached human-rights protection in AI governance?

What legal and policy safeguards are necessary to ensure responsible and human-rights-compliant AI development?

1.3. Objectives and Methodology

The objective of this article is to explore the legal relationship between Artificial Intelligence and human rights and to determine the necessary protections for the responsible governance of AI. The article utilizes a doctrinal and comparative legal research method, analyzing international human rights principles, Indian constitutional jurisprudence, Indian legislation and policy documents, UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, and the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act. It also discusses judicial authority in the area of privacy and dignity, including the Supreme Court of India's decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India.[1]

2. Artificial Intelligence and the Human Rights Framework

Human rights are founded on the intrinsic dignity and equal treatment of all individuals. Therefore, the advancement of AI should not be regarded solely as a technical or business issue, especially when AI systems affect people's rights and opportunities. UNESCO's 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence prioritizes human rights and dignity in AI governance.[2] It highlights the importance of proportionality, privacy and data protection, accountability, transparency, human oversight, sustainability, awareness, and non-discrimination. Significantly, UNESCO asserts that human rights must be honored, safeguarded, and advanced throughout the entire lifecycle of AI systems. This approach is significant because human-rights protection must begin before an AI system causes harm. Traditional legal remedies often respond after an individual's rights have already been violated. AI governance, however, requires preventive mechanisms such as risk assessments, impact assessments, audits, and human oversight. The European Union has adopted a similar rights-oriented approach through Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, commonly known as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act.[3] The Act establishes a risk-based regulatory framework and seeks to promote human-centric and trustworthy AI while ensuring protection of health, safety, and fundamental rights.[4] The EU framework demonstrates that AI regulation can distinguish between different levels of risk rather than treating every AI system identically. High-risk AI systems are subject to obligations regarding risk management, data governance, documentation, transparency, human oversight, and monitoring.[5] Therefore, a human-rights approach does not necessarily mean preventing innovation. Instead, it requires the risks created by AI to be proportionate to the legitimate objectives pursued.

3. Artificial Intelligence and the Right to Privacy

Privacy is significantly impacted in the age of artificial intelligence, as AI systems rely on vast amounts of personal information such as names, biometric data, and online behaviour for their operations. The international human-rights framework acknowledges the importance of safeguarding against unlawful interference with privacy. The advanced capabilities of AI to analyze and amalgamate data lead to novel forms of surveillance and profiling, posing challenges to existing privacy protections.

In India, the constitutional status of privacy was authoritatively recognized by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. A nine-judge Constitution Bench held that privacy is constitutionally protected and is closely connected with liberty, dignity and individual autonomy.[6]The judgment also recognized proportionality as an important standard when assessing restrictions upon privacy.[7] The Puttaswamy principles are particularly relevant to AI because automated systems frequently depend upon the collection and processing of personal information. An AI system that collects more data than necessary, retains it indefinitely, or uses it for an unrelated purpose may create serious constitutional concerns. India has also enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which recognizes the right of individuals to protect their personal data while permitting lawful processing of digital personal data.[8] The legislation establishes a statutory framework for data protection in an AI-driven economy. However, it notes that data protection does not address all AI-related human rights issues, as lawful data use can still lead to discrimination and lack of transparency. Thus, privacy measures should be coupled with transparency, accountability, and limitations on harmful automated decision-making.

4. Algorithmic Bias, Equality and Non-Discrimination

One of the most significant human-rights concerns associated with AI is algorithmic discrimination. AI systems learn patterns from historical data. If the underlying data reflects existing discrimination, the resulting system may reproduce or amplify those patterns.[9] For example, an AI recruitment system trained predominantly on historical hiring decisions may favor characteristics associated with previously successful candidates and disadvantage groups that were historically underrepresented. Similar risks can arise in credit scoring, insurance, education, policing and public welfare systems. The EU AI Act expressly recognizes that certain AI systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, including discrimination affecting women, persons with disabilities, particular age groups and racial or ethnic groups.[10] Employment-related AI systems are therefore treated as high-risk because automated decisions may have significant consequences for people's livelihoods and career prospects.[11] The issue of algorithmic discrimination is critical due to its complexity, making it hard to identify compared to human decision-making. The principle of equality necessitates an examination beyond discriminatory intentions, focusing instead on the discriminatory effects of AI. Essential measures include regular testing, use of representative datasets, independent audits, and avenues for affected individuals to contest decisions. UNESCO highlights fairness and non-discrimination as core tenets of responsible AI governance.[12] It calls for inclusive approaches so that AI does not reproduce social inequalities. A human-rights-compliant AI system should consequently be evaluated not only on accuracy but also on whether its outcomes disproportionately disadvantage particular groups.[13]

5. Human Dignity, Autonomy and Human Oversight

A comprehensive normative basis for assessing AI is rooted in human dignity. Individuals should not be treated merely as data points or subjected to incomprehensible decisions, which can undermine their autonomy. This concern is heightened when AI is employed by governments, businesses, and educational or financial institutions in significant decision-making. UNESCO emphasizes that AI must not jeopardize human dignity and cannot replace human accountability and responsibility.[14] Therefore, the idea of human oversight is crucial. Human supervision shouldn't be just formal. When evaluating an AI decision, a person must possess enough power and knowledge to challenge or override the system as needed. In a similar vein, the EU AI Act mandates human oversight for high-risk AI systems and creates safeguards that let people keep an eye on and control how these systems operate. When AI decisions impact freedom, employment, healthcare, education, welfare benefits, or access to basic services, human oversight is particularly crucial. An individual should not be denied a meaningful human review process in such situations.[15]

6. Comparative Analysis: India, UNESCO and the European Union

The European Union, UNESCO, and India show a growing global agreement on responsible AI principles. UNESCO provides a comprehensive international ethical framework focused on human rights and dignity, highlighting key values like proportionality, privacy, accountability, transparency, human oversight, and non-discrimination. This framework acts as a normative standard rather than a legal requirement. In contrast, the European Union has implemented a more detailed legislative approach, imposing strict compliance for high-risk systems and banning certain AI practices under the EU AI Act's risk-based framework, which also enables impact assessments of fundamental rights under specific conditions.[16]

India has adopted a comparatively flexible and principle-based approach. The India AI Governance Guidelines, unveiled by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in 2025, seek to promote safe, inclusive and responsible AI adoption.[17] The framework is based on seven guiding principles, including “People First”, “Fairness & Equity”, “Accountability”, “Understandable by Design” and “Safety, Resilience & Sustainability”.[18] Flexibility is a key benefit of the Indian strategy. AI technology evolves quickly, so strict laws may become outdated. An over-reliance on voluntary governance could cause ambiguity. The EU model provides more regulatory certainty. India's task is to ensure enforceable protection of rights and technological innovation.

7. Findings and Discussion

According to the analysis, AI can impact human rights in three main ways. 

First, AI might make already-existing rights abuses worse. Inequality from the past can be replicated by systems trained on discriminatory data. While automated profiling can compromise privacy and autonomy, surveillance technologies can facilitate widespread monitoring. 

Second, AI might produce new types of opacity. People might not be able to ascertain which data influenced an automated decision or why it was made. This makes it more difficult to use the right to contest a decision that is unfavorable. 

Third, AI raises the issue of accountability. Developers, data providers, deployers, and users may all be held accountable when an AI system yields negative outcomes. People may find it difficult to determine who is legally liable in the absence of clear regulations. These issues show why responsible AI cannot be judged solely on accuracy. Even highly accurate AI systems have the potential to violate human rights.

The appropriate legal approach should therefore combine technological standards with constitutional and human-rights principles.

8. Conclusion

Artificial intelligence (AI) represents a significant technological advancement with the potential to improve various sectors, including healthcare, education, governance, commerce, and communication. However, it is crucial to align AI development with ethical and legal responsibilities to protect individuals. The focus should be on integrating human rights within AI innovation, ensuring that advancements respect autonomy, equality, human dignity, and privacy. A global approach, highlighted by international standards such as UNESCO's Recommendation, advocates for a legally binding framework for AI. The European Union is implementing these principles through its risk-based AI Act, while India is developing its strategies based on data protection laws and governance guidelines. Key foundations for a sustainable AI framework should include human dignity, privacy, nondiscrimination, transparency, and accountability. Essential measures such as effective remedies, meaningful human oversight, independent audits, and human rights impact assessments are necessary to uphold these principles. Ultimately, AI should serve as a tool for human progress, maintaining control over critical life decisions, with governance effectiveness reliant on safeguarding the rights and dignity of all individuals amid technological advancements.

Reference

[1] Ghoshal, R. (2024). Establishing Global Ethical Standards for AI: A roadmap for Regulatory Harmonization. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i01.40167

[1] (2017) 10 SCC 1

[2] Ahrweiler, P. (2025). Participatory artificial intelligence in public social services. In Artificial intelligence, simulation and society. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71678-2

[3] Orwat, C., Bareis, J., Folberth, A., Jahnel, J., & Wadephul, C. (2024). Normative challenges of risk regulation of artificial intelligence. NanoEthics, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-024-00454-9

[4] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689

[5] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, arts 6–9, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/2026-07-27/eng

[6] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[7] Id

[8] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22 of 2023, Gazette of India, 11 August 2023. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/02/Digital-Personal-Data-Protection-Act-2023.pdf

[9] Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P. V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A. K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., . . . Williams, M. D. (2019). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002

[10]Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, recital 57, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1689

[11] Id, recital 57 and Annex III.

[12] UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, principle of fairness and non-discrimination. https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics

[13] Sulmicelli, S. (2025). AI-Augmented Constitutionalism: Framing the alliance between AI and fundamental rights in comparative perspective. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.55496/spue2081

[14]UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, paras 13–16. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence

[15] Comunale, M., & Manera, A. (2024). The Economic Impacts and the Regulation of AI: A review of the academic literature and policy actions. IMF Working Paper, 2024(065), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400268588.001

[16] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, art 27. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/2026-07-27/eng

[17] Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, India AI Governance Guidelines, unveiled 5 November 2025, available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=2186639&lang=2&reg=3

[18]Government of India, India AI Governance Guidelines: Enabling Safe and Trusted AI Innovation (2025). https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/nov/doc2025115685601.pdf