Corporate India's aggressive integration of Artificial Intelligence is exposing domestic enterprises to a severe legal and financial liability trap, top legal experts have warned, citing a stark imbalance between local AI deployment and indigenous development.
Because Indian companies are primarily deploying foreign-built AI rather than developing their own models, domestic enterprises risk absorbing the full legal fallout when algorithms hallucinate, miscalculate, or fail.
The 'Deployer vs. Developer' Deficit
Also Read | Layoffs Are Rising In Tech, But These Skills Are Helping People Unlock Better Pay
The core risk stems from India's position in the global AI supply chain. Speaking on Closing Argument, Sajan Poovayya, Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, highlighted a critical disparity in domestic tech spending.
"India is possibly one of the lowest spending jurisdictions on AI development, but AI implementation in this country is possibly three times more than the average implementation in other jurisdictions," Poovayya noted, citing reports pegging domestic deployment at 3.09 times the global average.
This hyper-adoption is occurring without a robust domestic safety net. Nikhil Narendran, Partner at Trilegal, pointed out the structural vulnerability this creates for Indian businesses. "We don't have many AI developers in this country. We are largely a country of AI service providers and AI deployers," Narendran said.
ALSO READ: India's AI Rulebook: Why Legal Experts Oppose An Omnibus Law In Favour Of Sectoral Matrix
SEBI Sets the Precedent: Deployers Take the Fall
The regulatory warning signs are already visible in the financial sector. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has moved to ensure that market intermediaries cannot use third-party AI developers as a legal shield.
Poovayya referenced SEBI's 2024 consultation paper, which outlined strict liability for financial entities utilizing AI and machine learning tools. "If the tool hallucinates and gives a wrong output, you can't come and tell [the regulator] that it was AI and therefore the tool has to be blamed," Poovayya explained. "You have deployed the tool. So I will make you responsible for the output of that tool."
This establishes a clear regulatory trajectory: the Indian financial institution deploying the technology—not the offshore developer—bears absolute responsibility for any resulting market manipulation or investor harm.
The Foreign Contract Reality
Outside heavily regulated sectors like banking and capital markets, corporate liability defaults to private commercial contracts.
Legal experts caution that these cross-border vendor agreements are frequently drafted in foreign jurisdictions and heavily favor the core tech developers. Standard contracts routinely cap the developer's financial liability at just a few months of software subscription fees. Consequently, if an AI tool triggers a catastrophic failure in an Indian hospital, retail chain, or corporate enterprise, the domestic deployer is left exposed to the bulk of the damages.
To mitigate these risks without stifling growth, experts across the panel rejected the idea of a sweeping, centralized AI law. Instead, they urged the creation of a sector-specific "regulatory matrix" that clearly defines accountability across the AI value chain—from the core developer to the domestic deployer and the ultimate end-user.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.
