CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Keywords:
algorithmic governance, automated decision-making, due process, artificial intelligence law, comparative constitutional law, India, Uzbekistan, procedural fairnessAbstract
Governments now let automated systems handle big decisions, everything from who gets social benefits to how taxes are collected, who can immigrate, and who ends up facing criminal charges. That shift stirs some serious constitutional problems, especially around due process, separation of powers, and equal protection under the law. This article dives into the ways algorithmic governance is shaking up public law, which usually relies on holding people not machines accountable for their choices. It looks at the major international rules on this stuff, like the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, Article 22 of the GDPR, the OECD principles, and UNESCO’s guidelines on ethical AI. Then, it zooms in on India and Uzbekistan to see how their laws stack up. Both countries have constitutional frameworks that could support holding algorithms accountable, but so far, those promises haven’t turned into actual, enforceable laws.Downloads
References
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine bias.
ProPublica.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2018). Guidelines on automated individual decision-making and profiling (WP251rev.01). Brussels.
Bundesverfassungsgericht. (1983). Volkszählungsurteil [Census Judgment], BVerfGE 65, 1.
Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–33.
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Official Journal of the EU, L 119, 1–88.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Official Journal of the EU.
Government of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat. (2019). Directive on Automated Decision-Making. Ottawa.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India). Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India).
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
New Zealand Government. (2020). Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand.
Statistics New Zealand.
OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD/LEGAL/0449. OECD.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 (India).
Rechtbank Den Haag [District Court of The Hague]. (2020, February 5).
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878 (SyRI Case).
Right to Information Act, 2005, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2290 (2017).
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO. SHS/BIO/PI/2021/1.
Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz [German Administrative Procedure Act] (BGBl. I p. 102, as amended 2021, § 35a).
World Bank. (2021). Uzbekistan digital economy diagnostic. World Bank Group.
