The Right to Know – Should Indian Law Mandate Disclosure of AI Interaction

INTRODUCTION

 The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer confined to laboratories, research institutions or futuristic discussions. What was once a tool for niche research has now become capable of answering everyday questions. Sometimes, a person may communicate with an AI powered support system, student may seek academic assistance, a consumer might receive responses to their grievances but the fact which is neglected is those are not human responses but AI given answers generated through algorithms. This increasing integration, however, raises a question that is simple in form but significant in its legal consequences: should a person have the right to know when they are interacting with artificial intelligence? The question is not whether AI should be permitted to communicate with people. There is little doubt that AI can improve efficiency, reduce costs and make services more accessible. The absence of disclosure may then influence a person’s decision wherein they believe the information and may disclose their personal or sensitive information.

The issue becomes even more significant when AI is used in areas involving consequential decisions. The concerning factor is that industries like healthcare, banking and education have started introducing AI interaction into their systems. India from starting is not at a position for complete regulatory absence. The country’s approach towards AI has significantly improved by emphasising principles such as transparency, accountability and human-centric development. At the same time, India’s regulatory framework has begun addressing certain risks associated with artificially generated digital content. Therefore, the central argument of this article is therefore not that every AI system must disclose itself in every circumstance. Such an approach may create unnecessary regulatory burdens and may have little practical value. Instead, India should aim at consider risk based right to AI disclosure under which the obligation to disclose information should be stronger when the AI interaction has the potential to materially affect individual rights, financial interests, safety, privacy, important decisions or access to essential services.

TRANSPARENCY

Transparency is regarded as the foundational principle of responsible Artificial Intelligence. However, transparency does not merely mean making technical information available to developers or regulators. It simply means that when interacting with AI system, transparency must answer, who am I interacting with? India’s responsible AI framework already recognises transparency in relation to human-AI interaction. IndiaAI explains that transparency includes disclosure such as human-AI interaction and automated decision-making which thereby can promote trust and help protect legal rights. This makes the idea of a “right to know” a logical extension of transparency rather than an entirely new regulatory concept. If an individual is unaware of the fact that the responses which they are receiving are AI generated then their approach to the conversation would be different from what it would have been if the nature of the system been disclosed. This significance becomes important when the interaction is done with a motive of exchanging personal information, financial decisions or while giving any professional advice where the individual may expect a human involvement.

The distinction between “Transparency and Disclosure” is therefore important. Transparency refers to the sharing of general information about how an AI system operates, what are its limitation and who is responsible for it. But disclosure of AI interaction is slightly different as it raises an important question, whether individual should be informed that AI is participating into the interaction. These two concepts are connected but both serves as a different purpose. The significance of this approach does not merely lie in disclosure, but in recognising that the identity with which a person is interacting can itself be legally relevant. The EU model also demonstrates why a blanket rule may not always be appropriate. Where the artificial nature of the interaction is already obvious, requiring a separate disclosure may provide little additional protection. The law can therefore distinguish between situations where disclosure is meaningful and those where it would merely create unnecessary formalities. The context of transparency paired with disclosure raises several questions but the answer requires an examination of India’s legal framework. India has several laws and regulatory mechanisms that address privacy, digital intermediaries, consumer protection and artificially generated content. The crucial issue is whether these existing mechanisms already provide adequate protection against undisclosed AI interaction or whether a specific regulatory gap remains thus making it efficiently improved for protection of information.

INDIAN FRAMEWORK

India does not presently regulate Artificial Intelligence with a single regulatory rule or statute. Instead, the approach of India towards the framing of governing rules for AI had significantly changed through existing information-technology law, intermediary regulation, data-protection measures, and broader responsible-AI policy initiatives. This is important because absence of an altogether accurate governing law does not amount to lack of statutory measures. Rather, different aspects of AI are governed through different legal and regulatory measures. The Information Technology Act, 2000 remains a notable statute of India’s digital legal framework. Its provisions address several forms of unlawful activity involving scams related to computer system and electronic communications along with identity theft, cheating by personation using computer resources and privacy-related offences. These provisions become relevant when AI-enabled systems are used for impersonation, deception or for misuse of personal information resulting in cyber frauds. The Government has also identified the provisions under section 66C and 66D of this act which identifies theft and impersonation in context of AI-generated harms.

India’s policy framework also provides an important foundation. The IndiaAI Responsible AI framework identifies transparency, explainability and accountability as key principles. It states that AI systems should be transparent about their development, processes, capabilities and limitations, while users should be able to seek understandable explanations for significant decisions taken by AI systems. It further emphasises the importance of identifying responsibility for AI outcomes. The current Indian approach can therefore be understood as sectoral and developing rather than completely absent. The law addresses specific harm, impersonation, frauds theft while policy frameworks aim at encouraging transparency and accountability in AI development and deployment. The 2026 amendments to the IT Rules further demonstrate that regulation is evolving in response to new forms of AI-related harm. Yet the central question, whether an individual has a clear, general and enforceable legal entitlement to know when they are talking to AI. Existing provisions may address the harm caused by a particular interaction but they do not necessarily establish standalone obligation. Therefore, the issue is not whether India has no AI regulation. It does have. But the more precise question is that does the existing framework provides sufficiently clear protection against undisclosed AI interaction particularly in aspects where an individual may get affected due to the involvement of AI interaction.

REGULATORY GAP

India’s emerging framework demonstrate that the law is beginning to respond to the risk created by AI. However, the existence of regulation concerning AI-generated content and the recognition of transparency as a responsible-AI principle do not necessarily establish a clear legal right for an individual to know when they are directly interacting with an AI system. The distinction is largely important because the existing framework is largely concerned with the content produced or disseminated through technology whereas the question addressed is about the nature itself. The 2026 amendments to the Information Technology Rules illustrate this distinction. The amended framework defines Synthetically Generated Information and requires intermediaries subject to the prescribed conditions to prominently label certain synthetically generated information and use technical provenance mechanisms. These provisions are significant because they recognise the danger of people being deceived by realistic artificial content. However, they primarily operate at the level of synthetically generated information and intermediary obligations.

The present Indian policy framework itself supports the relevance of this issue. IndiaAI’s Responsible AI material identifies transparency as including disclosure in areas such as human-AI interaction and automated decision-making, and connects such disclosure with trust and protection of legal rights. However, the objective should not be to simply replicate another jurisdiction’s framework in India. India’s digital ecosystem, regulatory institutions, technological capacity and scale of digital adoption are different. A disclosure obligation designed for India would therefore need to consider both individual protection and regulatory practicality. India being an adaptive country is significantly transforming its regulations. The challenge for Indian lawmakers is therefore one of calibration. Regulation must be strong enough to prevent deceptive or materially misleading AI interactions, while remaining flexible enough to avoid unnecessarily restricting beneficial uses of artificial intelligence. A well-designed framework should recognise that transparency is most valuable when it enables a person to make an informed choice, rather than when it merely satisfies a formal legal requirement. The question consequently shifts from “Should AI be regulated?” to a more precise one that “At what point does a person’s interest in knowing that they are interacting with AI become strong enough to justify a legal duty of disclosure which thus helps in determining the necessity of disclosure to the individuals.

WHY DISCLOSURE MATTERS

The requirement of disclosing information at first may appear as a matter of transparency. But in fact, it extends beyond merely informing a person about technology. A disclosure can affect a person’s autonomy, informed decision-making, privacy and ability to assess the reliability of an interaction. India’s Responsible AI framework itself connects transparency with trust, legal rights and human-AI interaction, indicating that disclosure has significance beyond technical compliance. First disclosure protects individual autonomy. A person can make meaningful choice when they possess information which is relevant to their choice. When an individual knows when they are interacting will AI will help being considerate with the information or personal details shared by securing it to its jurisdiction or will it transmit it to third party. This helps understand the ideology of individuals trust being on AI or on human assistance. The objective is not to assume that AI is inherently unreliable, but to ensure that the individual is able to decide how much reliance to place upon it.

Secondly, the disclosure becomes important because the AI can resemble so accurately that the individual cannot differentiate between a human interaction and AI resemblance. There occurs a possibility of deception or misplace trust as recognised in European Union Approach wherein the AI act directly requires to inform the individual the AI intervention prior communication. Thirdly, disclosure strengthens accountability. The importance of disclosure becomes even greater in high-impact interactions. A person using an AI tool for entertainment may face little consequence if they are unaware of its artificial nature. Disclosure also contributes to public trust in AI. The central value of disclosure lies in giving the individual knowledge before reliance. Once a person knows that AI is participating in an interaction, they are better positioned to determine whether to continue, verify the information, seek human assistance or refrain from sharing sensitive information. This preventive function makes disclosure particularly relevant to a legal framework concerned with protecting individuals rather than merely providing remedies after harm has occurred. The question, therefore, is not whether disclosure has value. It clearly does. The more difficult question is whether every AI interaction deserves the same level of legal protection. Requiring identical disclosure obligations for a simple entertainment chatbot and an AI system influencing a person’s financial or legal interests would be ignoring the risk involved with it.

RISK-BASED APPROACH FOR INDIA

India should consider moving toward a risk-based framework for disclosing AI interactions rather than imposing an identical disclosure obligation on every artificial intelligence system. The objective is not to treat all AI applications as equally dangerous but to recognise that if there occurs an undisclosed AI interaction in regards to its purpose and context, it would possibly have a potential impact on the individual. Such an approach would also be consistent with the broader principle of responsible AI, which emphasises the need to assess the transparency, explainability and accountability while recognising the risks associated with particular uses of AI. The lowest level of risk is when AI is used for entertainment, routine searches or for other interactions where it is unlikely to materially affect an individual’s rights or interests by encoding a simple message stating “You are interacting with an AI system” would provide adequate transparency without imposing excessive compliance requirements. In areas such as financial services, employment, education, healthcare, legal assistance individuals may reasonably attach greater importance to the information or decision communicated through the system.

A higher level of protection should apply where an AI system can influence an individual’s rights, financial interests, safety or access to essential services. In such circumstances, disclosure should ideally be accompanied by meaningful safeguarding statements. This approach would be beneficial for building India’s existing emphasis on explainability and accountability, under which users would be able to seek understandable explanations for taking significant decisions and responsibility for AI outcomes. The proposed framework should also pay particular attention to vulnerable individuals. Children, persons with limited digital literacy and individuals who may have difficulty in identifying artificial interaction from human interaction may face a greater risk of deception. In addition to it, the message or warning shouldn’t be placed at the bottom incorporated with the privacy policy as it may fail to provide the individual the information of AI intervention. Instead of informing it during conversation it should be exclusively informed prior interaction. Ultimately, the purpose of a right to know is not to make individuals suspicious of artificial intelligence rather they should have trust in AI that it is based on transparency rather than mistaken identity. A person who knowingly chooses to interact with an AI system is in a fundamentally different position from a person who is led to believe that the system is human. Indian law should recognise this distinction and develop a proportionate framework accordingly.

CONCLUSION

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming a participant in everyday human interaction, making the distinction between human and machine communication increasingly difficult to recognise. India’s regulatory approach has already begun responding to the risks associated with AI through measures concerning synthetic content, responsible AI governance, transparency and accountability. However, the question of whether an individual should be clearly informed when directly interacting with an AI system remains worthy of specific legal consideration. The argument for disclosure does not arise from a presumption that artificial intelligence is inherently harmful or unreliable. Rather, it arises from the principle that individuals should be able to make informed choices about the systems with which they interact. Knowledge that an interaction is being conducted by AI can influence the level of reliance a person places upon the information received, the personal information they choose to disclose and whether they decide to seek human assistance. This can be a valuable asset for future time thereby giving a prior intimation about AI interaction.

India therefore shouldn’t adopt a rigid rule requiring every AI system to follow identical disclosure requirement. A risk-based framework would be more proportionate. The nature, purpose and potential of AI interaction should determine the level of disclosure required. Low-risk interactions may require only simple identification, while systems operating in areas involving financial interests, personal data, healthcare, education, legal assistance or other consequential matters should be subject to stronger transparency and human oversight requirements. The experience of jurisdictions such as the European Union demonstrates that disclosure of direct AI interaction can be translated into a concrete regulatory obligation. India, however, should develop an approach suited to its own digital ecosystem, regulatory capacity and diverse population. A well-suited approach towards effective legislation will thus make it reliable to the citizens thereby creating a distinguished approach of interaction and protecting the personal information as per Article 21 of Indian Constitution and Information Technology Act, 2000. Ultimately, the right to know is not a demand to restrict technological progress; it is a demand to ensure that technological progress remains human-centred. AI may increasingly participate in human decision-making and communication, but individuals should not lose the ability to understand when technology stands on the other side of the interaction. A transparent and proportionate disclosure framework would therefore allow India to encourage AI innovation while preserving the autonomy, trust and informed choice of its citizens.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• LEGISLATION
  • Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21
  • Information Technology Act, 2000
  • Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended in 2026

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

• Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)
• Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2026
• IndiaAI, Ethics and Human Rights
• IndiaAI, Responsible AI: Principles and Points of Focus

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL MATERIAL

• • Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024, Artificial Intelligence Act, art 50.

WEBSITES

• India Code: https://indiacode.gov.in/home
• Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology: https://www.meity.gov.in/
• IndiaAI: https://indiaai.gov.in/

EUR- Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/