[Answered] Critically analyze the proposition that data collection and surveillance technologies cast a shadow over digital constitutionalism. Examine how AI threatens core constitutional principles.

Introduction

Rising digitalisation, from India’s 20.4 lakh cybercrimes (2024 NCRB) to expanding biometric ecosystems, has amplified debates on digital constitutionalism—where unchecked data collection and AI-driven surveillance challenge liberty, dignity and democratic accountability.

Threats to Digital Constitutionalism by Data Collection & Surveillance

1. Erosion of Privacy and Personal Autonomy: The Puttaswamy (2017) judgement established privacy as a fundamental right, but pervasive digital systems—Aadhaar databases, Sanchar Saathi-like pre-installed apps, metadata tracking, and geolocation logs—blur constitutional boundaries. Broad exemptions in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023 weaken individual autonomy through state-centric processing, limited oversight, and weak remedies.
2. Rise of Invisible and Predictive Surveillance: Surveillance is no longer Orwell’s overt 1984 model; it is silent and inferential. Tools such as facial recognition systems (FRS), CCTVs, predictive policing, and behavioural analytics operate without meaningful notice, consent or audit. Studies (ACLU, MIT Media Lab) reveal racial and gender bias, leading to wrongful arrests in the U.S.; similar concerns arise with India’s FRS pilots in Telangana, Delhi Police and DigiYatra. This undermines Article 14’s non-arbitrariness and produces a chilling effect on Article 19 freedoms.
3. Expansion of State Power and Weak Accountability: Digital governance centralises power among State and private platforms, threatening the rule of law. Absence of a comprehensive surveillance law or mandatory judicial warrants creates an asymmetry between State authority and citizen rights. Parliamentary Standing Committee (2021) flagged insufficient safeguards for government surveillance under IT Act, 2000 and Telegraph Act, 1885.
4. Loss of Meaningful Consent and Shrinking Citizen Agency: Purpose limitation and informed consent—pillars of digital constitutionalism—collapse with routine click-through agreements, opaque algorithmic processing, and unrestricted data retention. Citizens become passive data subjects, contradicting the constitutional idea of active rights-bearing individuals.

How Artificial Intelligence Threatens Core Constitutional Principles

1. Violation of Equality (Article 14): AI models often train on biased datasets, producing discriminatory outcomes in welfare delivery, credit scoring, hiring, predictive policing, and automated moderation. Example: Algorithmic errors in welfare systems in Rajasthan and Jharkhand caused exclusion of genuine beneficiaries (IDS report 2022). Black-box algorithms deny transparency, violating reasonableness and equality before law.
2. Undermining Due Process & Natural Justice: AI-driven decisions frequently lack the right to explanation, right to appeal, and procedural fairness. Automated deletions of political content or wrongful police profiling compromise natural justice principles recognised in Maneka Gandhi (1978).
3. Chilling of Free Speech and Expression (Article 19): Continuous algorithmic monitoring on social media, automated content moderation, and metadata surveillance generate fear and self-censorship. The UN Special Rapporteur (2019) warned of algorithmic censorship affecting democratic discourse.
4. Threat to Dignity and Personhood: AI-enabled behavioural profiling and biometric surveillance erode informational self-determination—central to dignity, which the Supreme Court considers a fundamental value of the Constitution.

Conclusion

As Shoshana Zuboff warns in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, unregulated data and AI regimes distort democratic accountability; strengthening constitutional safeguards is essential to ensure technology remains citizen-centric.