THE ALGORITHMIC DUE PROCESS: CHALLENGING THE “BLACK BOX” STATE UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
AUTHOR –DEEPA E.* & JEEVARAJA S. D.**
* 2ND YEAR LL.M., DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS LAW, SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW (SOEL)
** 2ND YR LL.M., DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS, SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW (SOEL)
BEST CITATION – DEEPA E. & JEEVARAJA S. D., THE ALGORITHMIC DUE PROCESS: CHALLENGING THE “BLACK BOX” STATE UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (9) OF 2026, PG. 350-356, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I939
Abstract
In the modern digital era, the nature of the “State” is undergoing a silent metamorphosis. Decision-making, once the exclusive province of human bureaucrats, is increasingly being delegated to complex, automated systems—often referred to as the “Black Box State.” In India, this shift is visible in everything from AI-driven welfare exclusion in Telangana to predictive policing in Delhi. While these technologies promise to solve India’s “3E” challenge—Efficiency, Error-reduction, and Elimination of bias—they simultaneously threaten the foundational pillar of constitutional governance: State Accountability. The “Black Box” problem refers to the technical opacity of machine-learning models where the internal logic is invisible even to its creators. This creates a profound constitutional crisis. Under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) of the Indian Constitution, the State is prohibited from acting “arbitrarily.” A core requirement of non-arbitrary action is the “Right to a Reasoned Order.” If a citizen is denied a pension or flagged as a criminal suspect by an algorithm, but the State cannot explain the specific variables that led to that outcome, the decision is effectively unchallengeable. This “failure of explanation” violates the principle of Audi Alteram Partem (the right to be heard), as one cannot argue against a logic that remains hidden.
To address this, legal scholars are proposing a multidisciplinary framework known as Algorithmic Due Process. This framework argues that for any State-used AI to be constitutional, it must incorporate Explainable AI (XAI). It shifts the burden of proof: instead of a citizen proving an algorithm is biased, the State must prove it is fair. Strategy-wise, litigants in 2026 are moving away from seeking “bans” on AI and instead seeking “Writs of Mandamus” to compel “Algorithmic Audits.” They argue that “Proprietary Secrecy” cannot override “Constitutional Transparency.” Ultimately, the challenge for the Indian judiciary is to ensure that the move toward a “Digital India” does not result in the “Death of Standards.” By enshrining Algorithmic Due Process, the law can ensure that technology serves as a tool for empowerment rather than a shield for administrative opacity.
Keywords: Algorithmic Due Process, Black Box State, Artificial Intelligence, Judicial Review, Technological Sovereignty.