UPSC Mains
GS Paper II
Polity & Governance
Digital Rights: AI Training Models, Privacy and Telecom Consumer Grievance Redressal
The DPDP Act, 2023 does not address AI training on personal data, while TRAI’s new rules make telecom complaint redressal faster and more accountable
DPDP RULES NOTIFIED
November 2025
MAIN PROVISIONS IN FORCE
May 2027
APPEAL WINDOW (TRAI)
30 to 15 days
📰
Why in News
AI and privacy: An analysis finds that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 does not address AI training on personal data.
Telecom grievances: TRAI issued the Telecom Consumers Complaint Redressal (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2026 on 2 November 2026.
ℹ️
Part 1: AI Training Models and Privacy — What Are the Gaps?
- Public data left out: The Act does not apply to publicly available personal data (Section 3(c)(ii)), including data scraped from social media and inferred data such as emotions and behaviour.
- No sensitive-data category: Passwords and health data are treated like a name or a shopping interest, a step back from the IT Act, 2000 and its 2011 Rules.
- Silence on AI: AI models can memorise and regurgitate training data, so “anonymised” data can be used to re-identify and profile people.
- No right to object: Indian users cannot stop their public data from being used to train AI, while Meta gives EU users an opt-out.
- Weak erasure: The right to be forgotten covers only data given with consent, and is exempt for research, archiving and statistics (Section 17(2)(b)). It is unclear if AI training counts as research.
- Timeline: The Rules were notified in November 2025, with the main provisions in force from May 2027.
📖
Part 2: TRAI’s Telecom Consumer Complaint Rules
- Who is covered: Internet Service Providers with more than 10,000 subscribers.
- Easier complaints: Consumers can complain or appeal through the provider’s mobile app, besides the existing channels.
- 24×7 help: Complaint Centres must work round the clock. AI agents can be used, but human help must be available at least 16 hours a day.
- Accessibility: Special helplines and accessible apps for persons with disabilities.
- Faster appeals: The time to appeal falls from 30 to 15 days, and the Appellate Authority must decide within 15 days.
- Accountability: Providers must run a feedback survey after each complaint, report to their CEO or Board every quarter, and set up a Consumer Grievance Redressal Oversight Committee.
- Enforcement: TRAI can audit providers and impose financial penalties for non-compliance.
⭐
Significance
- Digital protection: Both stories ask how users are protected when services run on data and automation.
- Privacy: A fundamental right under Article 21 needs rules that cover AI-era data use.
- Trust: Fast, accessible and accountable grievance systems build trust in digital services.
🚧
Challenges
- Balance: Too tight a rule can slow AI, and too loose a rule weakens privacy.
- Enforcement: DPDP provisions are phased in, and the Data Protection Board is new.
- AI agents: Human oversight must be real, not only on paper.
🛤️
Way Forward
Cover AI training
Make the Act apply to AI training data, with a right to object.
Protect scraped data
Protect scraped and inferred data, and strengthen the right to erasure.
Clarify and classify
Clarify the research exemption, and create a sensitive data category.
Avoid bans
Do not ban data export or AI training, which could worsen inclusion and bias.
Conclusion: Privacy and consumer protection must keep pace with technology. Clear rules on AI training and accountable grievance systems can protect users without stalling innovation.
📰
Source: The Hindu & PIB

