India's Patchwork AI Governance: States and Courts Forge New Security Standards

As global debates about AI regulation remain largely theoretical, India is quietly building a practical, if fragmented, governance framework through an unexpected combination of state-level policies and high court rulings. This emerging patchwork of standards, focused on ethical AI development, sovereign research capabilities, and digital personality rights, is creating de facto security and compliance requirements that multinational technology companies can no longer ignore. For cybersecurity and governance professionals, understanding this decentralized Indian model is becoming essential for risk management and operational planning in one of the world's largest digital markets.

The State-Level Laboratory: Rajasthan and Gujarat Forge Separate Paths

India's federal structure is enabling what some analysts call a 'laboratory of democracy' approach to AI governance. In the western state of Rajasthan, the cabinet has approved a forward-looking AI & ML Policy 2026 that places significant emphasis on ethical AI development and security frameworks. While full policy details remain forthcoming, early indications suggest it will establish guidelines for secure AI deployment, data protection protocols for AI training, and accountability mechanisms for AI-driven decisions—essentially creating a state-level GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) framework for artificial intelligence.

Meanwhile, Gujarat is taking a different but complementary approach by focusing on sovereign AI research capabilities. The state government has approved the establishment of the Indian AI Research Organisation (IARO) at GIFT City, Gujarat's flagship financial and technology hub. This initiative, receiving approval from key government figures, aims to create an indigenous research ecosystem less dependent on foreign AI technologies and architectures. From a cybersecurity perspective, sovereign AI research carries significant implications for supply chain security, intellectual property protection, and reduced dependency on potentially vulnerable foreign AI systems. The IARO initiative suggests India is pursuing technological self-reliance not just for economic reasons, but for security resilience.

The Judicial Frontier: Personality Rights as Digital Security

Parallel to these policy developments, India's judiciary is actively shaping the boundaries of AI governance through case law. In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted comprehensive protection of personality rights to actor NTR Junior, specifically addressing the unauthorized use of his name, image, voice, and other identifiable characteristics in digital contexts. While the case didn't exclusively concern AI-generated content, its implications for deepfakes, voice cloning, and other AI-powered impersonation technologies are profound.

The court's ruling effectively creates a legal precedent that personality rights extend into the digital realm and apply to synthesized media. For cybersecurity teams, this means that technical controls to prevent unauthorized AI impersonation are no longer just ethical considerations—they're becoming legal requirements in the Indian context. The ruling establishes that organizations must implement technical safeguards against the creation and distribution of unauthorized AI-generated representations of individuals, adding a new dimension to identity and access management (IAM) and content security protocols.

Convergence Points: The Emerging Indian AI Security Framework

Three distinct threads are converging to form India's unique approach to AI security:

1. Ethical and Secure Development Standards: Rajasthan's policy initiative suggests that Indian states may begin mandating specific security practices in AI development lifecycles, potentially including secure coding standards for AI models, bias testing requirements, and transparency obligations for automated decision systems.

1. Sovereign Research and Supply Chain Security: Gujarat's IARO represents a strategic move toward reducing dependency on foreign AI infrastructure. This has direct cybersecurity implications, as locally developed and maintained AI systems could theoretically undergo more rigorous security vetting and be subject to domestic incident response protocols.

1. Judicial Protection of Digital Identity: The Delhi High Court ruling creates what amounts to a right to digital self-determination, requiring technical measures to protect against AI-powered identity theft and impersonation. This intersects with existing cybersecurity domains like fraud prevention, identity verification, and media authentication.

Implications for Global Technology Companies

For multinational corporations operating in India, this decentralized approach creates a complex compliance landscape. Unlike the EU's centralized AI Act, companies may need to navigate different AI security requirements in different Indian states while also accounting for evolving judicial interpretations of digital rights. This presents several specific challenges:

• Compliance Fragmentation: Security teams may need to implement different technical controls and documentation processes for operations in Rajasthan versus Gujarat versus other states with their own emerging policies.
• Legal Risk Management: The personality rights ruling creates potential liability for platforms hosting user-generated content that includes AI-generated impersonations, requiring more sophisticated content moderation systems.
• Architecture Considerations: The push for sovereign AI research may eventually lead to preferences or requirements for locally developed AI solutions in government and critical infrastructure projects, affecting technology procurement decisions.

Strategic Recommendations for Cybersecurity Leaders

1. Monitor State-Level Developments: Establish mechanisms to track AI policy initiatives not just at India's federal level, but across major states with technology hubs.
2. Enhance Digital Identity Protections: Review and strengthen technical controls against AI-powered impersonation, including deepfake detection, voice authentication, and media provenance systems.
3. Engage with Sovereign Research Initiatives: Consider partnerships or knowledge exchanges with emerging Indian AI research organizations to stay aligned with local security standards and priorities.
4. Develop Flexible GRC Frameworks: Create adaptable governance structures that can accommodate regional variations in AI security requirements without complete architectural overhauls.

India's decentralized, ground-up approach to AI governance represents both a challenge and an opportunity. While it creates complexity for global operators, it also offers a real-world testing ground for AI security frameworks that balance innovation with protection. As other nations observe India's experiment, the standards emerging from its states and courtrooms may well influence global norms for AI security and governance. For cybersecurity professionals, understanding this evolving landscape is no longer optional—it's becoming a necessary component of global risk management in the age of artificial intelligence.