Rajya Sabha MP Kartikeya Sharma bats for ‘Committee of Future Affairs’

Member of Parliament of Rajya Sabha Kartikeya Sharma along with former Union Minister and Advocate K.J. Alphons, Meghna Bal Director Esya center and advisor Koan and Cyber technology expert Subimal Bhattacharya share their thoughts on the topic of Al : A theater to governance, Politics and Judiciary. on the Legally Speaking event — the 3rd Law and Constitution Dialogue organized by ITV Network on Friday, December 13, 2025. Kartikeya Sharma highlighted that India faces the same issues as the rest of the world and needs to stay ahead of the curve by understanding how AI will impact the country, particularly in adversarial contexts.
Kartikeya Sharma discussed the challenges of regulating AI, noting that its evolution is difficult to predict. He referenced Justice Suryakant’s warning about the dangers of AI if left unregulated. As a member of the IT committee, he stressed the need for a comprehensive framework to address these issues, acknowledging that the European Union has made progress, but it’s not yet systematic or coherent. He emphasized the importance of ongoing discussions and debates before regulations can be effectively put in place, as unregulated AI could lead to serious challenges.
Sharma also proposed creating a “Committee of Future Affairs” in India to better address emerging global challenges like AI.
He highlighted that India faces the same issues as the rest of the world and needs to stay ahead of the curve by understanding how AI will impact the country, particularly in adversarial contexts. Quantifying these impacts would help solve many of the challenges, if not all.
Alphons expressed a bleak view, claiming that the human species is already “finished” due to our dependence on mobile devices and social media for truth, emotions, and reactions. He suggested that technology, especially AI, is worsening the situation, and regulations won’t keep pace with its rapid development. He likened it to the quick emergence of new COVID variants, where regulations can’t keep up with fast-evolving technology.

Bhattacharya acknowledged that while AI presents challenges, it’s not as catastrophic as some portray. AI has existed for decades, but the emergence of generative AI and large language models has increased its potential for misuse. The real concern lies in the massive data processing, algorithms, and biases that come with it. He emphasized the need for legislation and societal understanding to address these risks. He also questioned how to regulate AI effectively, such as whether websites should be watermarked to prevent misuse. While India doesn’t have specific AI legislation, existing laws like the Data Protection Act and IP Act can help address AI-related issues since it fundamentally deals with data. He pointed out that current policing doesn’t prioritize AI-related frauds, which are often treated with little urgency.

Meghna emphasized that technology itself is not inherently bad; it depends on how it is used. For example, AI can be applied for advancements in medicine or, conversely, for harmful purposes like biological terrorism. The key question is how it is put to use. From her perspective, AI’s power comes from its computing capability combined with organized, accessible data, making virtually anything possible. The challenge is determining where to draw the line. She suggested that regulation should focus on defining what should not be done, especially what could potentially harm us. While there’s no clear-cut answer, she believes this is an ongoing process that will evolve over time.