OPINION | India Needs a Fourth Pillar: Tech Accountability Commission For The Digital Age
India needs a constitutionally backed Tech Accountability Commission to oversee digital power, platforms, and AI systems, ensuring transparency and protecting democratic rights.
By Himanshu Shekhar
India’s democratic design rests on a tripartite constitutional structure, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, supported by a historically informal but normatively powerful fourth estate: the press. For over seven decades, this architecture has served the nation. Yet the rise of complex digital systems, algorithmic infrastructures, and private technological intermediaries has created a new locus of power that lies largely outside this constitutional framework.
As digital systems increasingly mediate political participation, identity verification, welfare distribution, mobility, surveillance, and public discourse, India faces a fundamental question: can democratic legitimacy survive when technologically mediated power is not subject to constitutional oversight? This paper argues that India must formally conceptualise and institutionalise a Fourth Pillar for the Digital Republic, a constitutionally anchored Tech Accountability Commission with the authority, independence, and expertise necessary to oversee the rapidly evolving domain of digital power.
From State-Centric Power to Platform-Mediated Power
Traditional constitutional design assumes the State is the primary site of coercive authority. Laws, procedures, and checks-and-balances are oriented around restraining government excess. Yet in contemporary India, platforms, algorithms, data intermediaries, and AI systems increasingly perform functions analogous to those of a sovereign actor. Platforms curate political speech, defining the boundaries of public discourse. Algorithmic systems influence behaviour through opaque incentive architectures. Identity infrastructures such as Aadhaar and DigiYatra condition access to mobility and rights. Data brokers and ad-tech ecosystems profile citizens, shaping both consumption and political exposure. AI-driven decision tools influence policing, welfare targeting, and financial inclusion, often without procedural transparency.
This diffusion of power has created a hybrid governance environment, where state and private actors jointly shape rights, liberties, and social outcomes. Unlike the State, however, private technological actors operate without constitutional obligations or institutionalised accountability. India’s constitutional system currently does not recognise this new domain of techno-political authority.
Institutional Gaps in India’s Digital Governance Architecture
Existing mechanisms are inadequate for overseeing these contemporary digital systems. Parliamentary bandwidth is limited, and legislative frameworks often lag behind technological adoption. The Executive frequently deploys digital systems, facial recognition, predictive policing, drones, and data-sharing interfaces, without statutory authorisation, transparency, or independent audits, creating structural conflicts of interest.
Courts intervene only after rights violations occur, lacking continuous supervision or real-time oversight. Sectoral regulators such as the RBI, TRAI, and UIDAI operate within narrow mandates, leaving no unified body to audit cross-sectoral digital risks or evaluate interactions between surveillance, AI, and platform governance. Public participation mechanisms remain weak, and parliamentary committees lack the technical capacity to meaningfully oversee digital power.
India’s democracy, therefore, operates without a constitutional institution explicitly responsible for safeguarding digital rights, algorithmic fairness, and technological legitimacy.
Why a Fourth Pillar Is Constitutionally Necessary
Democratic governance requires predictability, transparency, and contestability of power. When power migrates to opaque, privately controlled digital systems, these conditions collapse. Algorithmic decisions can scale harm instantaneously and invisibly. Database, algorithm, and platform design effectively redefine the contours of equality, privacy, and expression. India’s constitutional history demonstrates a willingness to create new institutions in response to governance challenges, from the Election Commission and CAG to the Lokpal and NITI Aayog. A Tech Accountability Commission is a natural continuation of this tradition.
Independent oversight is essential. Technological power cannot be adequately monitored by those who deploy it. A dedicated institution with technical expertise and epistemic independence is crucial to maintain democratic accountability.
A Proposed Tech Accountability Commission
A constitutionally anchored Tech Accountability Commission should enjoy independence comparable to the Election Commission and CAG, including protected appointments, fixed tenure, and financial autonomy. It should draw interdisciplinary expertise from constitutional scholars, engineers, AI ethicists, economists, sociologists, and cybersecurity specialists.
The Commission should exercise proactive regulatory authority, auditing algorithmic systems, reviewing state and private digital deployments, and issuing binding norms of accountability. Transparency obligations must include public reports, hearings, algorithmic impact statements, and continuous disclosure. Crucially, its jurisdiction must cover both state and private digital power, including AI, biometric deployments, data infrastructures, platform governance, misinformation ecosystems, and cross-sectoral digital architectures.
Constitutional Reinvention for a Digital Republic
India is undergoing a profound transformation in how power is produced, distributed, and exercised. The shift from bureaucratic to algorithmic governance, from institutional mediation to platform mediation, and from state-centric to hybrid techno-political authority requires a constitutional response, not merely a regulatory one.
If India wishes to preserve democratic legitimacy in the digital age, it must recognise that the existing constitutional structure is incomplete. A Fourth Pillar for Tech Accountability is no longer optional; it is essential. Democracies fail not only through overt authoritarianism, but also through institutional inertia in the face of new forms of invisible, automated, and privately controlled power. India’s opportunity lies in acknowledging this shift and designing institutions capable of governing it.
(The author is a techno-legal analyst and a media veteran)
Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP Network Pvt. Ltd.
Top Headlines
