{
  "id": 2912220,
  "title": "What India can learn from EU’s AI reset",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/24/what-india-can-learn-from-eus-ai-reset",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-08-24T00:51:36.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Indian Express",
    "slug": "the-indian-express",
    "url": "https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/european-union-ai-omnibus-india-artificial-intelligence-policy-governance-10846508/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The EU AI Act initially aimed to regulate artificial intelligence through a risk-based framework, but the EU’s AI Omnibus, effective from July 27, modifies certain elements of the AI Act. This update extends specific deadlines and streamlines some compliance obligations, granting regulators and companies more time to prepare for high-risk AI guidelines. This is not a retreat from regulation; rather, it acknowledges that AI evolves at a pace faster than laws typically can. For India, this serves as a valuable lesson on regulation without stifling innovation.\n\nThe original EU AI Act was founded on a risk-based approach, prohibiting certain AI practices, imposing stringent obligations on high-risk systems, and applying specific rules to general-purpose AI models. However, the act's implementation has been challenging. The EU's response demonstrates that even well-designed regulations must be adaptable. India must adopt a similar approach to its AI governance.\n\nIndia should learn that effective regulation must evolve with technological advancements and emerging risks. Regulators must possess the capability to review and amend rules as necessary. Although India has historically focused on responsible AI, innovation, and sector-specific governance, this flexibility should not lead to confusion. Businesses require clarity, while citizens need protection, and regulators must clearly understand their responsibilities. The regulatory burden should correlate with the potential harm posed. The greater the risk to individuals and society, the stronger the safeguards should be.\n\nA third lesson centers on smaller companies. Compliance can be burdensome, and large technology firms can easily hire legal counsel, engineers, and auditors. Start-ups may not have the same resources. Excessive compliance costs could unintentionally benefit large corporations, diminish competition, and hinder innovation. Simplification should not result in deregulation. Reducing paperwork does not equate to lowering safeguards. AI can give rise to significant risks concerning privacy, discrimination, manipulation, and opaque decision-making processes. India must ensure that simpler regulations do not equate to weaker protection.\n\nThe fifth lesson pertains to institutional matters. The EU has demonstrated that even a comprehensive regulatory framework can be revised when necessary. Regulatory maturity involves acknowledging when rules are ineffective and making necessary adjustments. India possesses strengths that can support an adaptive AI governance model, such as its extensive digital population, experience with digital public infrastructure, a rapidly growing technology sector, and extensive deployment of digital services. The IndiaAI Mission, regulatory sandboxes, sectoral regulators, research institutions, and industry bodies can contribute to this adaptive framework. India should establish a structure that safeguards citizens while promoting experimentation and ensuring that the regulatory framework remains responsive to technological advancements. Ultimately, the goal should be to design regulation that fosters safer and more trustworthy AI innovation.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}