Friday, June 5

Explainer Series: Legislation

AI systems are reshaping society but challenge traditional criminal law, which relies on human intent and action. Globally, the EU uses risk-based rules; the U.S. applies existing laws with sentencing enhancements; the UK and Singapore adapt negligence and governance frameworks. Liability models range from holding humans responsible to strict liability for high-risk AI. India currently applies old criminal and IT laws, with courts emphasizing rights and oversight. Scholars propose negligence rules, strict liability, and mandatory insurance for AI harms. Policymakers are considering risk-based laws, sandboxes, standards, and human oversight to build a clear, future-ready AI liability framework.

Read More

AI challenges traditional IP rules: most countries require human authorship for copyright, while patents allow AI-assisted inventions if a person makes a real inventive contribution. Training AI on copyrighted works remains legally unclear. India’s Revised CRI Guidelines (2025) clarify AI patent eligibility, but copyright treatment of fully AI-generated content is unsettled. Experts call for clear authorship and inventorship rules, text-and-data-mining exceptions, transparency about AI contributions, regulatory sandboxes, and international cooperation to balance innovation with public access.

Global use of the death penalty is shrinking, with most executions concentrated in a few countries like China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Many nations have abolished it, and the UN supports a global moratorium. Supporters cite justice and deterrence, while opponents highlight wrongful convictions, discrimination, and human rights concerns. India retains capital punishment for the “rarest of the rare” cases but has not executed anyone since 2020. Courts are cautious, and legislative debates continue. Experts recommend clearer laws, judicial training, and exploring life imprisonment as a humane alternative while considering a formal moratorium.