India to come up with AI Regulation Framework

Introduction
‍

In May 2025, at Mumbai’s first-ever World Audio Visual and Entertainment Summit (WAVES), PM Narendra Modi marked a turning point: the rise of what he called India's Orange Economy. Here lies a new path to growth - one built less on factories, more on invention, artistry, and spreading thought globally. While aiming for massive economic scale, India finds its creative industries movies, sound, games, cartoons, clothing design, books, online media stepping forward. 

First appearing in a 2013 guide from the Inter-American Development Bank, the phrase 'orange economy' emerged through work by Felipe Buitrago Restrepo and Iván Duque Márquez, suggesting past neglect in defining how culture connects with economic activity. Because orange stands for imagination and heritage in many societies, it became the label for this particular sector of economic life..

According to UNESCO’s 2022 Global Report Reshaping Policies for Creativity, the cultural and creative sectors account for 3.1% of world GDP and employ 6.2% of the global workforce – more than the total number of people employed in car manufacturing in Europe, Japan and the U.S. Meanwhile, UNCTAD's 2024 Creative Economy Outlook shows cross-border trade in creative services hit $1.4 trillion in 2022, up nearly a third from five years ago, demonstrating how imagination is remaking modern commerce.

In his book The Creative Economy, economist John Howkins states that the creative economy is essentially about the relationship between creativity and economics, where ideas themselves are products, and imagination becomes a form of capital.

‍

India’s Slice of Orange 

‍

The Scale of Opportunity
‍

Despite its potential, India’s role in the global creative economy remains largely untapped. According to the FICCI-EY Media and Entertainment Report, the country’s media and entertainment sector ranks among the world’s most rapidly expanding, fueled by a youthful demographic that is increasingly online and earning more. Boasting over 600 million people using the internet, it hosts a vibrant network of creators - musicians in Guwahati, podcasters in Kochi, game developers in Bengaluru, filmmakers in Punjab - who together form a rich pool of talent unlike any other.

Now comes a shift at the WAVES Summit, where PM Modi framed content, creativity, and culture as core to an emerging economy. Not just products but ideas take center stage here, he suggested, during what he described as the ideal time to build from India for global impact. While earlier efforts pushed factory output under Make in India, this approach turned toward thinking work - where stories, visual forms, and online expression shape progress. Thought becomes product; imagination fuels industry.

‍

Creative Industries Leading Change
‍

What many people don’t know is that India makes more films than any other country. The films made in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam or Kannada are also widely circulated outside India, not just the output of Mumbai. Streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime carry these works, reaching far beyond local audiences. Furthermore, India’s gaming industry is nascent but growing rapidly, and is attracting increasing attention from policy makers. Until recently, studios around the world have not relied on Indian teams for animation and visual effects. Now, local creators are slowly building their own game franchises. Momentum is shifting - original ideas once rare now appear more often across the country. Deep within India’s craft traditions handwoven textiles, carved block patterns, intricate metallic threadwork lies a quiet fusion of legacy and modern expression. Viewed anew through the framework of creative enterprise, such practices reveal dual value: access to global markets alongside sustenance for village-based makers. Rather than mere relics, they function as living systems where art meets income. Changes in perception make them economic opportunities, rather than local crafts. Every stitch, every weave, is not just technique but the weight of continuity in the face of change. And today, streaming platforms allow independent musicians in India to connect directly to listeners worldwide.

‍

The Three T’s: Technology Talent Tolerance
‍

Richard Florida, an economist, in his work The Rise of the Creative Class once proposed a model where city progress ties closely to innovation, skilled individuals, and openness. His idea - crafted originally for U.S. urban areas fits well when viewing India today. Growth now depends less on old industries, more on environments that attract capable minds through flexibility. Regions thrive not just by building tech hubs but by welcoming diverse lifestyles. One factor feeds another: talent flows where freedom exists, ideas grow where tools are available. A place gains momentum only if it supports all three at once.

Technology

A tool opens doors. Low-cost internet, budget phones, together with government-backed digital expansion, made making content possible for nearly anyone. The focus should be on accessibility and last mile delivery. 

Talent

Home to the youngest population on Earth, it sees countless imaginative minds emerge yearly from schools that now encourage original thinking. Still, despite rising worldwide interest in what these individuals produce, many cannot cover basic needs - a gap highlighted by UNESCO’s 2022 findings. But this contradiction lacks for systems that ensure fair pay, protect ideas, and offer stability beyond fleeting projects.

Tolerance

Openness to difference, trial, and unusual thinking shapes the trickier part of the equation. The wide mix of tongues, beliefs, and cultural expressions in India adds real value. Still, fostering innovation demands systems willing to adapt with rules safeguarding free expression, fair access for women in arts sectors, smoother paths for excluded groups.

‍

Challenges on the Path to “Create in India”
‍

India has millions of creators who influence culture but struggle to make a regular income from their work. Platforms take the lion’s share of profits, but those creating content, especially outside the big cities, often don’t have legal help, fair contracts or links with brands.

Another issue is Intellectual Property Literacy, IP rules such as copyright, trademark and patent systems empower the creative economy. Still, uneven understanding and spotty enforcement across India put many creators at risk of unfair use. Surprisingly, UNESCO’s 2022 assessment points to missing global standards for measuring creative sectors. Because of this gap, India faces challenges in shaping precise policy moves. Without detailed cultural satellite accounts, tracking progress remains uneven. Sector-specific figures would help fill these blind spots. Otherwise, decisions rely on incomplete information.Lastly, across the world, female professionals in artistic fields hold fewer top roles while earning less than men - a gap clearly seen in India too. To shape a fairer cultural sector, intentional strategies must elevate women, indigenous makers, and creators with disabilities.

‍

Conclusion
‍

In India, where young energy meets tradition through digital tools. Stories once shared locally now move across borders, carried by platforms that turn art into income. Because of this shift, music and fashion gain reach but only if creators can protect their work. Without fair pay or legal backing, even brilliant ideas fade quietly. Support systems matter, not just ambition. Recognition from society shapes whether fresh voices endure. In 2022, UNESCO’s report showed that although more people want to do creative work, those who create it still find it hard to make a living. New ideas offer a way forward, not to copy what exists, culture is then voice and value all at once.

‍

References
‍

1. https://sprf.in/from-make-in-india-to-create-in-india-charting-indias-orange-economy-frontier/ 
2. https://www.unesco.org/reports/reshaping-creativity/2022/en 
3. https://iasscore.in/current-affairs/indias-orange-economy 
4. https://indiasworld.in/the-dawn-of-indias-orange-economy/ 
5. Marta-Christina Suciu, "The Creative Economy" (Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest)
6. John Howkins, The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas (2001)
7. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (2002)
8. UNCTAD, Creative Economy Outlook 2024
9. SPRF, "From Make in India to Create in India" (December 2025)
10. IDB, The Orange Economy: An Infinite Opportunity (2013)

‍

Introduction

‍

In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.

‍

What the AI Basic Act Covers

‍

The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.

The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.

Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.

‍

Guardrails for Safety and Accountability

‍

One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.

The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.

The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.

These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised. 

‍

Transparency and Labelling Requirements

‍

The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.

The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.

The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.

‍

Data Privacy and User Protection

‍

The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.

The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.

‍

Accountability and Governance Infrastructure

‍

The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.

This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.

‍

Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support

‍

Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.

This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.

‍

What This Means Globally

‍

The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.

Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.

Sources

‍

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws 
• https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf 
• https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea 
• https://aibasicact.kr/ 
• https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026 
• https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/ 

‍

Introduction

The use of digital information and communication technologies for healthcare access has been on the rise in recent times. Mental health care is increasingly being provided through online platforms by remote practitioners, and even by AI-powered chatbots, which use natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) processes to simulate conversations between the platform and a user. Thus, AI chatbots can provide mental health support from the comfort of the home, at any time of the day, via a mobile phone.  While this has great potential to enhance the mental health care ecosystem, such chatbots can present technical and ethical challenges as well.

Background

According to the WHO’s World Mental Health Report of 2022, every 1 in 8 people globally is estimated to be suffering from some form of mental health disorder. The need for mental health services worldwide is high but the supply of a care ecosystem is inadequate both in terms of availability and quality. In India, it is estimated that there are only 0.75 psychiatrists per 100,000 patients and only 30% of the mental health patients get help. Considering the slow thawing of social stigma regarding mental health, especially among younger demographics and support services being confined to urban Indian centres, the demand for a telehealth market is only projected to grow. This paves the way for, among other tools, AI-powered chatbots to fill the gap in providing quick, relatively inexpensive, and easy access to mental health counseling services.

Challenges

Users who seek mental health support are already vulnerable, and AI-induced oversight can exacerbate distress due to some of the following reasons: 

1. Inaccuracy: Apart from AI’s tendency to hallucinate data, chatbots may simply provide incorrect or harmful advice since they may be trained on data that is not representative of the specific physiological and psychological propensities of various demographics. 
2. Non-Contextual Learning: The efficacy of mental health counseling often relies on rapport-building between the service provider and client, relying on circumstantial and contextual factors. Machine learning models may struggle with understanding interpersonal or social cues, making their responses over-generalised. 
3. Reinforcement of Unhelpful Behaviors: In some cases, AI chatbots, if poorly designed, have the potential to reinforce unhealthy thought patterns. This is especially true for complex conditions such as OCD, treatment for which requires highly specific therapeutic interventions. 
4. False Reassurance: Relying solely on chatbots for counseling may create a partial sense of safety, thereby discouraging users from approaching professional mental health support services. This could reinforce unhelpful behaviours and exacerbate the condition. 
5. Sensitive Data Vulnerabilities: Health data is sensitive personal information. Chatbot service providers will need to clarify how health data is stored, processed, shared, and used. Without strong data protection and transparency standards, users are exposed to further risks to their well-being. 

Way Forward

1. Addressing Therapeutic Misconception: A lack of understanding of the purpose and capabilities of such chatbots, in terms of care expectations and treatments they can offer, can jeopardize user health. Platforms providing such services should be mandated to lay disclaimers about the limitations of the therapeutic relationship between the platform and its users in a manner that is easy to understand. 
2. Improved Algorithm Design: Training data for these models must undertake regular updates and audits to enhance their accuracy, incorporate contextual socio-cultural factors for profile analysis, and use feedback loops from customers and mental health professionals. 
3. Human Oversight: Models of therapy where AI chatbots are used to supplement treatment instead of replacing human intervention can be explored. Such platforms must also provide escalation mechanisms in cases where human-intervention is sought or required. 

Conclusion

It is important to recognize that so far, there is no substitute for professional mental health services. Chatbots can help users gain awareness of their mental health condition and play an educational role in this regard, nudging them in the right direction, and provide assistance to both the practitioner and the client/patient. However, relying on this option to fill gaps in mental health services is not enough. Addressing this growing —and arguably already critical— global health crisis requires dedicated public funding to ensure comprehensive mental health support for all. 

Sources 

• https://www.who.int/news/item/17-06-2022-who-highlights-urgent-need-to-transform-mental-health-and-mental-health-care 
• https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/mental-healthcare-in-india-building-a-strong-ecosystem-for-a-sound-mind/105395767#:~:text=Indian%20mental%20health%20market%20is,access%20to%20better%20quality%20services. 
• https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1278186/full 

‍