India Forms AIGEG to Lead AI Governance Strategy, But Key Regulators Left Out

India Establishes High-Level Inter-Ministerial Body for AI Governance

India has constituted the AI Governance and Economic Group (AIGEG), a high-level inter-ministerial body designed to steer the country's national AI governance strategy. Announced on April 13, the AIGEG will serve as the apex body within India's AI governance framework, with Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw at its helm 1

1

. Minister of State for Electronics and IT Jitin Prasada will serve as vice chairperson, bringing together senior stakeholders from across government departments spanning policy development, science and technology, security, and economic affairs 1

1

.

The formation of AIGEG represents MeitY's response to recommendations from both the India AI Governance Guidelines and the Economic Survey, merging the proposed AI Governance Group and AI Economic Council into a single central mechanism for coordinating AI policy 2

2

. The body will coordinate policy across ministries, departments, and sectoral regulators while overseeing cross-sectoral governance issues 1

1

.

Assessing Labour Market Impacts and Developing Mitigation Plans

A critical mandate for AIGEG involves assessing the impact on the job market from AI adoption and developing comprehensive mitigation strategies. The inter-ministerial body will work with industry and other stakeholders to create a roadmap for AI deployment over the next decade, including detailed assessment of job profiles affected, geographical concentration of impacts, and the extent of automation and augmentation 1

1

.

The group will classify AI use cases into categories such as "deploy," "pilot," and "defer" based on readiness factors including data availability, skills, legal frameworks, and capacity for labour adjustment 1

1

. This approach accounts for India's unique challenges including informality, skill diversity, and regional variations in the labour market impacts of AI adoption 1

1

.

Technology and Policy Expert Committee to Support AIGEG

The Technology and Policy Expert Committee (TPEC) will provide advisory support to AIGEG on global developments, emerging technologies, risks, regulation, and other evolving priorities relating to AI policy and governance 1

1

. This expert committee will help the inter-ministerial body stay informed about global AI governance trends and best practices while tailoring approaches to India's specific context.

Promoting Responsible AI Innovation and Compliance Mechanisms

AIGEG's mandate extends to promoting responsible AI innovation and beneficial deployment of AI in key sectors. The body will review existing compliance mechanisms and issue guidelines to ensure firms are held accountable for compliance with local laws 1

1

. It will also oversee national initiatives on AI governance across the public and private sector, study emerging risks of AI, identify regulatory gaps, and assess the need for legal amendments 1

1

.

Notable Exclusions Raise Questions About Regulatory Framework

Despite its broad mandate, AIGEG excludes several independent regulatory bodies that were recommended in the India AI Governance Guidelines. The body's membership is limited to ministers and senior officials from select ministries, omitting key regulators including the Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, and the Competition Commission of India 2

2

.

This exclusion comes as the government has repeatedly affirmed its stance against regulation of AI, even as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology recently recommended examining the feasibility of a comprehensive law to regulate AI 2

2

. The Economic Survey had emphasized the need for a coordinating authority capable of aligning AI deployment with labour realities and social stability priorities 1

1

.

The constitution of AIGEG gives formal effect to institutional recommendations, yet its structure suggests a preference for ministerial coordination over independent regulatory oversight. As India positions itself in the global AI governance landscape, stakeholders will be watching how this framework balances innovation with accountability, and whether the absence of independent regulators affects the body's ability to address sector-specific risks and ensure comprehensive oversight of AI adoption across India's diverse economy.