The Algorithmic State: Constitutional Challenges in AI-Driven Denial of Welfare Benefits in India

Abstract

The world of public administration is expanding and gaining more and more the territory of Artificial Intelligence (AI) also. Algorithmic systems are helping governments to distribute welfare benefits, assess eligibility, use computer algorithms and algorithms for processing applications, and detect fraud more efficiently. Digitization of government services is driving the trend of automated decision-making in India, e.g., social welfare, public distribution systems, scholarships, pensions, and many others. These technologies have the potential to increase service delivery effectiveness, reduce costs, and improve administration, but also raise important constitutional issues in instances of decision-making that is largely opaque and is used almost exclusively by automated means when decisions impinge upon citizens' rights and entitlements.
This paper considers the implications for the constitution of AI-based decision making in relation welfare administration. It asserts that the growing use of algorithmic systems in the assessment of entitlement to public benefits may have a potential impact on the rule of law and go against the basic and underlying constitutional values of equality, fairness, transparency and procedural justice. Automated systems may lead to discriminatory outcomes, lack of complete or accurate data, and withhold benefits without offering adequate explanations or review options. These risks are particularly great in welfare systems where the beneficiaries tend to be more socially and economically disadvantaged.
The paper works through the notion of algorithmic state and examines the relevance of classic traditional concepts of constitutional protection to novel experiences of automated governance. It also investigates issues of bias, lack of transparency in algorithmic decisions, and the reduction of human oversight in public decisions. The study argues that "administrative efficiency," cannot excuse a tampering with the constitutional protections. It recognizes that the implementation of AI in welfare governance needs to be supported by strong safeguards such as transparency stipulations, accountability systems, human review procedures, and remedies for those impacted by adverse outcomes due to automated decision-making.