The Constitution of India, while crafted in the mid-20th century, has demonstrated remarkable adaptability to evolving technologies. However, in the era of algorithm-driven governance — where artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making systems influence public services, law enforcement, and welfare distribution — there exists a constitutional vacuum. This article attempts to explore the constitutional invisibility of algorithmic actions by the state and argue for the inclusion of algorithmic accountability within the ambit of Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty.

Understanding the Gap: Algorithms Without Accountability

Modern governments increasingly rely on algorithms in critical sectors such as public healthcare, predictive policing, social welfare schemes, and even surveillance. However, these automated systems often operate without clear accountability mechanisms or transparency, thereby creating a black-box governance scenario. For instance, beneficiaries under government schemes may be denied rations or pensions due to a mismatch in biometric data, flagged by an algorithm — yet there is no legal avenue to understand or challenge such algorithmic decisions. This reflects a constitutional shortfall where actions that effectively restrict an individual's right to life, livelihood, or dignity remain outside traditional judicial review, simply because they are non-human and non-statutory.

Why Article 21 Is the Right Anchor

Article 21 reads: 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.' In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expanded the phrase 'procedure established by law' to mean just, fair, and reasonable. But what happens when the 'procedure' is an algorithm with no clear maker, interpreter, or justification? The denial of essential services based on flawed or opaque algorithms violates substantive and procedural due process, yet courts have not developed a framework to scrutinize such systems under Article 21. This lacuna weakens the enforceability of the most sacred fundamental right in a digital society.

International Parallels: Moving Toward Constitutional Tech Norms

Globally, there is movement toward legal recognition of algorithmic rights. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) includes the right to explanation for automated decisions. Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados also contains accountability clauses. India, while preparing the Digital India Act and debating data protection laws, lacks a constitutional narrative on AI governance. The judiciary's silence risks allowing the state to outsource constitutional duties to non-accountable digital tools.

Proposed Framework: Judicial Review of Algorithms

To uphold constitutional morality, the following is proposed:

• Presumption of Reviewability: All automated decision-making systems used by the state should be presumed subject to Article 21 scrutiny.
• Mandatory Explainability: Algorithms impacting fundamental rights must offer a human-readable explanation mechanism.
• Algorithmic Disclosure: Use of any AI by the government must be declared and audited periodically.
• Right to Algorithmic Fairness: Citizens should have a right to challenge biased or discriminatory outputs of algorithms.

These mechanisms do not restrict innovation but ensure constitutional conformity in digital governance.

Conclusion
The Indian Constitution is a living document, not bound by the limitations of its birth era. As governance migrates from manual to machine, Article 21 must evolve to capture the nuances of digital denial, bias, and exclusion. The judiciary and legislature must proactively ensure that algorithmic governance does not become an unregulated realm, exempt from the rule of law. This article advocates for a constitutional doctrine of algorithmic accountability  a necessity for justice in the 21st century.

End-Notes:

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
• European Union, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 22
• Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (LGPD), Article 20
• S. Binns, "Algorithmic Accountability and Transparency in the Digital State", TechGov Journal, 2023