1. Democracy’s Paradox & the “Chosen” People of the State
2. One Nation One Licence – India’s Proposed Framework to Balance AI Innovation and Copyright
    

• Popular Sovereignty: In a democracy, the people are sovereign and create the state. The government is "of the people, by the people, for the people".
• State Authority: In practice, the modern state apparatus is invested with the power to determine the legal boundaries of its population through mechanisms like electoral rolls, national identity cards, and citizenship acts. This means the state decides who has the rights and status of a citizen.

• Administrative Discretion: The determination of citizenship status often falls to low-level bureaucrats (e.g., village clerks, border agents, or electoral officers) whose decisions can have life-altering consequences, such as suspension of voting rights or potential deportation.
• Burden of Proof: The current debate in India, surrounding the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, has shifted the burden of proof onto individuals to proactively establish their citizenship. This stands in contrast to an inclusive model where all residents are presumed citizens unless proven otherwise.
• Lack of Uniform Evidence: There is no single document that universally proves Indian citizenship, leading to a complex situation where individuals must rely on various legacy records going back decades, increasing the risk of arbitrary exclusion. 
• The dynamic effectively means the state, through its administrative processes and legal frameworks (like the Citizenship Act, 1955, and its amendments), defines who is a legitimate member of the political community, thereby "choosing" which individuals constitute the body politic from which it draws its authority.

• Jurisdiction Conflict: A primary legal challenge is that the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not have the explicit power to determine citizenship.
• Petitioners' Argument: Petitioners argue that only the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and quasi-judicial bodies like Foreigners Tribunals, can make formal determinations of citizenship or declare someone a foreigner.
• ECI's Argument: The ECI asserts that its constitutional mandate under Article 324 to ensure pure electoral rolls (which require voters to be citizens, per Article 326) inherently grants it the power to verify citizenship status for voter eligibility purposes. They contend this is a voter verification exercise, not a formal citizenship determination leading to statelessness.
• Arbitrary Discretion: The process places immense discretionary power in the hands of local administrative officials (Booth Level Officers, EROs) to accept or reject documents, leading to potential arbitrary exclusions and a lack of uniform standards.
• Procedural Legality of SIR: The legal basis and implementation of an en masse SIR are being challenged.
  • "En Masse" vs. Selective Revision: Critics argue the law (Section 21(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1950) provides for selective revision based on specific complaints, not an unbridled, nationwide "de novo" exercise that requires all voters to re-establish their eligibility.
  • Exclusion of Documents: The ECI initially excluded commonly held documents like Aadhaar cards, Voter IDs, and ration cards as proof of citizenship during the SIR, which the Supreme Court noted was potentially "absurd" and suggested reconsidering.

• Risk of Statelessness/Disenfranchisement: The process, if flawed, carries the potential for massive disenfranchisement (marking individuals as "doubtful" voters or D-voters, who then face Foreigners Tribunals) and even potential statelessness, as applicants under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) also face an uncertain path to formal citizenship conferral. 

• Rule of the People: The state is the creation of the people, and the government is meant to be "of the people, by the people, for the people".
• Inclusion as Default: The democratic ideal presumes that all residents are citizens unless clearly proven otherwise, emphasizing broad political participation and access to rights.
• Constitutional Limits: Democratic governance relies on a constitutional framework that defines the limits of state power and protects citizens' rights, including due process and equality before the law. 

• State Defines the People: The modern state, through its power to create citizenship laws and maintain records, decides who is a citizen and who is not.
• Discretionary Determination: The actual determination of citizenship status often falls to low-level officials (e.g., village clerks, Booth Level Officers) who have significant discretionary power to accept or reject documentation.
• Administrative Convenience vs. Existential Security: The need for administrative efficiency and "pure electoral rolls" can lead to processes that create existential insecurity for marginalized populations, effectively converting administrative convenience into a potential loss of fundamental rights. 

• Who Determines the Electorate? The core dispute in the Indian Supreme Court is whether an administrative body like the Election Commission of India (ECI) can conduct mass citizenship verification (a core function of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Foreigners Tribunals) to determine voter eligibility.
• From Popular Will to Bureaucratic Judgment: When citizenship becomes a "bureaucratic judgment" based on documentation rather than a foundational political status, the nature of the democracy changes. The state risks transforming from a system of popular sovereignty to one of bureaucratic certification.
• Vulnerability of Marginalized Groups: This shift disproportionately impacts the poor, illiterate, and migrants who often lack formal documentation, making them vulnerable to arbitrary exclusion and disenfranchisement. 

• Parliamentary Supremacy (Article 11): The Constitution does not provide permanent or detailed rules on who acquires or loses citizenship after its commencement. It explicitly grants Parliament the plenary power to legislate on all matters related to the acquisition and termination of citizenship.
• The Citizenship Act, 1955: Parliament used this power to enact the Citizenship Act, 1955, which, along with its various amendments, establishes the legal pathways to citizenship (birth, descent, registration, naturalization) and loss of citizenship.
• Executive Authority (MHA & Tribunals): The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and quasi-judicial bodies like Foreigners Tribunals are the legally designated authorities to formally determine whether a person is a citizen or an illegal migrant under the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act, 1946. 

• Inquisitorial Power: Can the ECI, under its broad power of superintendence (Article 324), conduct an "inquisitorial" process through the SIR to flag "doubtful" cases, even if it cannot issue a final citizenship order?
• Burden of Proof: A key constitutional principle is that the state usually bears the burden of proving a person is not a citizen. The SIR process shifts this burden onto individuals to produce documents going back decades, which may violate principles of fairness and due process.
• Presumption of Citizenship: Once a person's name is on the electoral roll, it generally carries a "strong presumptive value" of citizenship. The SIR challenges this presumption en masse, raising concerns about mass disenfranchisement and potential violations of fundamental rights. 

• AI and Copyright (December 2025): The government's Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has released a working paper proposing a "One Nation, One Licence, One Payment" model for AI developers using copyrighted content.
  • This framework suggests a statutory licensing regime where a government-appointed committee would prescribe royalty rates for AI training data, making India a global leader in this specific policy area if implemented.
  • The proposal aims to balance AI innovation with creators' rights, sparking intense global debate over intellectual property in the age of AI.

• Retail Sector Demand (December 2025): Leaders in the Indian retail industry are urgently advocating for a "One Nation, One Retail Licence" policy to consolidate the current "plethora of licenses" required to operate.
• Industry executives argue that a single, unified business license with single-window, digital approvals would drastically reduce operational costs and complexities, encouraging investment and growth in the sector. 

• Mandatory Licensing: The framework mandates that AI developers obtain a single national license to use any "lawfully accessed" copyrighted material for training their models.
• Centralized Royalty Collection: An umbrella non-profit body, the Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT), would be established under the Copyright Act, 1957. Its function would be to collect royalties from AI companies and distribute the proceeds to copyright holders.
• Statutory Remuneration Right: The proposal introduces a statutory right for copyright holders to receive compensation, moving away from current voluntary negotiation models.
• No Opt-Out for Creators: A key aspect is the lack of an explicit "opt-out" mechanism for individual creators. Instead, platforms that do not want their material used for training must implement technical access controls like paywalls or anti-scraping technologies.
• Government-Fixed Rates: Unlike global models, India proposes government-fixed statutory royalty rates, which has sparked debate over potential undervaluation of premium content and the risk of over-regulation.

• Establishment: It is proposed to be established as a new umbrella entity under the Copyright Act, 1957.
• Mandate: Its primary function is to serve as the institutional mechanism for AI developers to pay royalties for using lawfully accessed copyrighted content to train their systems.
• Operational Model: Instead of AI companies negotiating individual licenses (which can have high transaction costs), the CRCAT would implement a mandatory blanket license system.
• Membership: Membership in the CRCAT would be limited to organizations (not individuals), with one member per class of work (e.g., music, news, audiovisual).

• Collection: Collects payments from AI developers, calculated as a percentage of the AI system's gross global revenue.
• Distribution: Distributes the collected royalties proportionally to the relevant copyright holders/societies based on the extent of usage.
• Inclusivity: Holds royalties for unorganized sectors for a period (e.g., three years) to allow them time to form Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) and claim their share.
• Retroactive Clause: The proposal suggests that royalty obligations could apply retroactively to existing, commercially successful AI systems that have already used copyrighted content. 

• Industry groups like NASSCOM label it a "tax on innovation," arguing it raises costs, stifles research, burdens startups, and may drive training abroad.
• Retroactive royalties risk massive liabilities and legal disputes for existing models, while administrative complexities in tracking usage and distributing funds could lead to disputes over rates and fairness.
• Content creators worry about undervalued premium works under government-fixed rates, potentially creating an India-specific outlier in global AI norms.​

Download Pdf