Abstract:
In recent years, governments around the world have integrated algorithmic systems into core
governance functions such as welfare eligibility, immigration control, predictive policing, and
credit assessments. While these innovations promise efficiency and consistency, their
unregulated deployment raises serious legal and ethical concerns. In countries with
underdeveloped digital laws, especially across the Global South, this shift is occurring without
sufficient legal frameworks to protect individual rights or ensure transparency in decisionmaking. This paper critically explores the legal vacuum surrounding algorithmic governance.
It argues that these systems, often seen as objective tools, can in fact embed and amplify
societal biases, disproportionately disadvantaging marginalized communities. Unlike human
decision-makers, algorithms operate with limited transparency, making it difficult for affected
individuals to understand, contest, or appeal decisions. The absence of explicit legal
protections such as the right to explanation, access to due process, and algorithmic
accountability raises fundamental questions about justice, fairness, and democratic oversight
in digital public policy. To address this, the study employs a comparative legal analysis of
selected jurisdictions including the European Union, United States, and India to examine how
existing laws respond to the governance challenges posed by artificial intelligence. It explores
concepts such as data justice, algorithmic transparency, and human oversight, identifying gaps
and opportunities in current regulatory frameworks. The paper proposes a comprehensive
legal framework to regulate algorithmic governance, grounded in constitutional principles and
administrative justice. Key recommendations include establishing algorithmic review boards,
mandating public audits of AI systems, and enforcing legal standards for fairness,
explainability, and accountability. By intersecting legal theory with real-world digital policy, this
research highlights the urgent need for legal safeguards that ensure technology serves all
citizens equitably—not just the digitally privileged.
