India

Argus Partners is pleased to announce that it has advised Glassbox Solutions Private Limited (“Glassbox”) and its founders with respect to 100% acquisition of Glassbox by Komerz Limited (UK) (“Komerz”). The acquisition was structured as a cross-border share swap, involving concurrent FDI and ODI components in accordance with the applicable corporate and foreign exchange regulations in India. Glassbox is a multidisciplinary brand transformation, media and marketing agency that works with leading brands across strategy, creative, communications and digital commerce. The acquisition forms part of Komerz’s broader strategy to build an integrated global commerce ecosystem that connects brand creation, consumer engagement, retail distribution and transaction intelligence through a unified platform.   The transaction addresses a longstanding challenge within global retail and consumer markets, where marketing, brand-building and commerce infrastructure have traditionally operated in separate silos. Through the integration of Glassbox’s brand and communications capabilities with Komerz’s retail and commerce technology platform, the combined group seeks to offer multinational corporations and direct-to-consumer brands an end-to-end solution spanning brand awareness, consumer engagement, retail execution and performance measurement.   Following the acquisition, the combined entity, with a corporate valuation of approximately $330 million, will operate across Europe, Asia and North America, strengthening its ability to serve global brands through a connected commerce and marketing platform.   The deal team at Argus Partners consisted of Jaidrath Zaveri (Partner) and Aradhana Pandit (Associate). Anindya Ghosh (Partner) provided strategic inputs on the transaction.   Read more at: Economic Times  

Abstract Nazul land constitutes one of the largest repositories of public property in India. Historically vested in the Government through escheat, confiscation, acquisition, lapse, or succession from colonial authorities, Nazul lands were intended to serve public purposes and governmental functions. However, the policy of converting leasehold Nazul land into freehold ownership, introduced in several States including Uttar Pradesh, has exposed serious weaknesses in land administration. In numerous instances, freehold proceedings have allegedly been utilized as a vehicle for legitimizing unauthorized occupations, fabricated title chains, forged documents, and illegal transfers of valuable public land. This article examines the legal framework governing Nazul properties, analyses the loopholes commonly exploited during freehold proceedings, evaluates judicial responses to such practices, and argues for urgent reforms to prevent the continued transfer of public assets into the hands of land mafias and professional land usurpers. I. INTRODUCTION Land disputes have traditionally occupied a substantial portion of Indian litigation. Among these disputes, controversies involving Nazul lands assume particular significance because they concern public property held by the State in trust for the benefit of society. Unlike private property disputes, illegal alienation of Nazul land results in permanent depletion of public assets and directly affects the State's capacity to undertake developmental and welfare activities. The conversion of Nazul land from leasehold tenure to freehold ownership was originally conceived as an administrative reform intended to simplify property transactions, eliminate recurring lease renewal disputes, and generate revenue for the Government. However, the implementation of freehold policies has often produced consequences far beyond their intended objectives. Across several States, particularly Uttar Pradesh, allegations have surfaced regarding the conversion of highly valuable Nazul properties into private ownership through forged documentation, manipulated revenue records, fabricated succession claims, and administrative collusion. The issue is not merely one of procedural irregularity. Rather, it raises fundamental questions concerning the protection of public property, the accountability of public officials, and the ability of the legal system to prevent organized land grabbing under the guise of administrative regularization. II. CONCEPT AND LEGAL CHARACTER OF NAZUL LAND The term “Nazul” is not exhaustively defined in any central legislation. Traditionally, Nazul land refers to property that has vested in the Government by virtue of escheat, lapse, confiscation, abandonment, acquisition or succession from former rulers and colonial administrations. In Uttar Pradesh, the management of Nazul properties is principally regulated by: The Government Grants Act, 1895; The Uttar Pradesh Nazul Manual; Government Orders issued from time to time; Terms and conditions contained in individual lease deeds. A distinguishing feature of Nazul land is that rights in such property arise not under ordinary property law but under Government grants. Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 specifically exclude the application of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 insofar as Government grants are concerned. Consequently, the rights of a lessee are governed entirely by the terms and conditions of the grant. The Supreme Court in State of U.P.& Ors Vs. United Bank of India & Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 757 has reaffirmed that Nazul leases are governed by the Government Grants Act and that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act cannot override the terms of the Government grant. Thus, any transfer, assignment, mortgage or succession must strictly comply with the conditions imposed in the grant and it remains wholly unaffected by any other statute. III. EVOLUTION OF FREEHOLD POLICY IN UTTAR PRADESH The policy of converting leasehold Nazul properties into freehold ownership gained momentum through Government Orders issued by the State Government during the late 1990s and early 2000s. The Government Order dated 1 December 1998 introduced a comprehensive mechanism for conversion of certain categories of Nazul leasehold properties into freehold. The policy aimed to regularize lawful occupations and facilitate transferability of property rights. However, practical implementation soon revealed widespread misuse of the scheme. To address these concerns, the Government issued a series of corrective orders, including: Government Order dated 4 August 2006, directing that applications where freehold deeds had not been executed and registered should not be proceeded with. Government Order dated 15 February 2008, reiterating and clarifying the directions contained in the 2006 Government Order and once again it is reiterated that where freehold document has not been executed the application stands rejected. Government Order dated 17 March 2008, restricting eligibility for freehold conversion to original lessees and their lawful successors. Government Order dated 21 October 2008, mandating that freehold conversion should not be permitted where the land may be required for public purposes. Despite these safeguards, numerous controversies emerged regarding the implementation of the freehold scheme and there are numerous cases across the state where the G.O.s are blatantly violated and freehold proceedings were executed. The culmination of governmental concern may be seen in the promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Nazul Sampatti (Lok Prayojnarth Prabandh Aur Upyog) Ordinance, 2024, which substantially altered the legal landscape by prioritizing public use and restricting alienation of Nazul properties. IV. THE UTTAR PRADESH NAZUL MANUAL: A FORGOTTEN SAFEGUARD AGAINST ILLEGAL ALIENATION OF GOVERNMENT LAND Any discussion concerning illegal freehold conversion of Nazul land in Uttar Pradesh would remain incomplete without examining the role of the Uttar Pradesh Nazul Manual. Although the State does not possess a comprehensive codified statute governing all aspects of Nazul administration, the Nazul Manual constitutes a compilation of administrative instructions, rules, circulars and governmental directions which have historically regulated the management, preservation, transfer and disposal of Nazul properties. The significance of the Nazul Manual was recognized by the Allahabad High Court in Hari Babu Jain & Ors. V. State of U.P. & Ors. WRIT - C No. - 32687 of 2018, wherein the Court observed that in the absence of any statutory enactment comprehensively governing Nazul administration, the State has regulated such properties through the Nazul Manual and various Government Orders. The Manual therefore serves as the primary administrative framework governing Nazul land management in Uttar Pradesh. A careful examination of the Manual reveals that many of the irregular freehold proceedings challenged before courts involve direct violations of its fundamental provisions. Rule 5 and Rule 5A: Maintenance and Authenticity of Nazul Records Rules 5 and 5A deal with maintenance, correction and mutation of entries in Nazul records. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that no change is introduced into Government land records without proper verification and authorization. These provisions assume particular importance because the first step in many fraudulent freehold transactions is the insertion of a claimant's name into the Nazul Register. Once such an entry is secured, it is subsequently projected as proof of title and succession. The underlying legislative intent behind Rules 5 and 5A is to ensure that Government land records remain reliable and cannot be manipulated by unauthorized persons. Any mutation unsupported by valid documentary evidence strikes at the very foundation of Nazul administration. Rules 48 and 49: Restrictions on Transfer and Assignment Rules 48 and 49 constitute one of the most important safeguards contained in the Manual. These provisions require scrutiny and approval before any transfer or assignment of leasehold rights in Nazul property is recognized. The rationale behind these rules is rooted in the special nature of Government grants. Unlike ordinary private property, Nazul land remains Government property and any transfer of rights must occur strictly within the framework prescribed by the State. The requirement of prior sanction serves multiple purposes: Protection of Government ownership; Prevention of unauthorized transfers; Verification of bona fides of transferees; Prevention of speculative transactions in public land. In numerous disputed freehold proceedings, however, there is no evidence whatsoever that any prior permission was ever sought or granted. Yet subsequent transferees are treated as lawful successors, thereby defeating the very purpose of Rules 48 and 49. Rules 57 and 63: Renewal of Lease and Recovery of Dues Rules 57 and 63 regulate lease renewal and recovery of Nazul revenue. These provisions contemplate a structured procedure involving verification of compliance with lease conditions, payment of arrears and consideration of Government interests before any renewal is granted. The objective is clear: renewal is not a matter of right. However, many disputed cases reveal a complete absence of renewal proceedings. In several instances, decades pass without payment of rent, execution of fresh lease deeds or compliance with lease conditions. Yet freehold conversion is subsequently granted as if a valid and subsisting lease continued to exist. Such practices directly undermine Rules 57 and 63 and effectively reward non-compliance with Government grants. Rule 71A: Mutation of Successors and Recognition of Rights Rule 71A is particularly relevant in cases involving succession and inheritance claims. The rule contemplates verification of legal entitlement before recording the names of successors in Nazul records. The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. Many contemporary disputes concerning Nazul properties originate from alleged successions that occurred several decades ago. In numerous cases, there is no governmental record evidencing the succession, yet the names of alleged successors eventually appear in revenue records and become the basis for freehold applications. Rule 71A was designed precisely to prevent such situations. Failure to comply with the verification mechanism prescribed under this provision undermines the legitimacy of subsequent freehold proceedings. The Larger Significance of the Nazul Manual Collectively, Rules 5, 5A, 48, 49, 57, 63 and 71A demonstrate that the State had consciously created a multilayered system of safeguards to prevent unauthorized privatization of Government land. Most fraudulent freehold transactions do not succeed because of deficiencies in the legal framework. Rather, they succeed because the safeguards already contained in the Nazul Manual are either ignored, bypassed or deliberately violated. The recurring pattern observed in several disputed freehold matters suggests that the problem lies less in the law itself and more in the failure of authorities to faithfully implement the law. V. FABRICATED TITLE CHAINS: THE MOST COMMON MODUS OPERANDI Perhaps the most significant loophole in Nazul freehold proceedings arises from the acceptance of questionable chains of title extending across several decades. In many disputed cases, claimants trace their rights through a succession of wills, powers of attorney, assignment deeds, family arrangements, and mutation orders allegedly executed many decades earlier. Frequently, the original documents are unavailable, registration records are untraceable, and the alleged transactions lack any corresponding entries in Government records. The problem is particularly acute where the original lessee died decades ago and the alleged successors rely upon private documentation unsupported by contemporaneous governmental records. Such cases raise a fundamental legal question: can an individual claim freehold rights over Government property merely by producing a chain of private documents when the foundational conditions of the Government grant have never been complied with? Catena of Judicial precedent suggests the answer must be in the negative. VI. IGNORING CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT GRANTS Most Nazul lease deeds contain stringent restrictions regarding transfer and assignment. Typically, they require: Prior written permission of the Government; Intimation to the Collector; Payment of prescribed fees; Formal approval of assignment. The Allahabad High Court in *Hari Babu Jain & Ors. V. State of U.P. & Ors* undertook an exhaustive examination of the legal framework governing Nazul leases and held that a grantee cannot transfer rights except in accordance with the conditions of the Government grant. The Court observed that any transfer effected without prior permission of the lessor is void and incapable of conferring legal rights upon the transferee. Despite this settled legal position, freehold proceedings often proceed without examining whether any valid assignment ever took place. Unauthorized transfers are routinely treated as valid links in the chain of title, thereby legitimizing transactions that were void from inception. VII. THE MYTH OF AUTOMATIC RENEWAL A recurring misconception in Nazul administration is the assumption that lease renewal occurs automatically. Most Nazul leases contain fixed terms and require: Formal renewal applications; Payment of enhanced rent; Execution of fresh lease deeds. However, in numerous cases no renewal order exists, no fresh lease deed is executed, and rent remains unpaid for decades. Nevertheless, authorities proceed on the assumption that the lease continued indefinitely. The Supreme Court in *Delhi Development Authority v. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 11 SCC 406  rejected the doctrine of automatic renewal and held that continuation in possession does not by itself confer a right to renewal. This principle assumes critical importance in freehold proceedings because only a valid subsisting lease can form the basis of conversion into freehold ownership. VIII. REVENUE RECORD MANIPULATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURE One of the most troubling aspects of Nazul disputes is the misuse of mutation and revenue entries. Revenue entries serve fiscal purposes and do not create title. Yet, in practice, mutation entries are frequently treated as evidence of ownership. The sudden appearance of names in Nazul registers immediately preceding freehold proceedings is a phenomenon repeatedly observed in disputed cases. Such entries are then used to establish a purported chain of title despite the absence of supporting legal documentation. The failure of authorities to verify original records from registration offices, Government archives and revenue departments creates fertile ground for fraud. IX. ORGANIZED LAND GRABBING AND JUDICIAL RESPONSE The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the growing menace of organized land scams. In Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1793 OF 2023 , the Court observed that land scams often involve forged title documents, manipulated land records, fraudulent transactions and organized criminal networks operating through sophisticated methods. The Court emphasized the necessity of conducting impartial investigations wherever public land is suspected to have been usurped through fraudulent means. These observations assume particular significance in the context of Nazul land because the economic value of urban public land creates strong incentives for organized criminal activity. X. PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE AND PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT LAND The illegal conversion of Nazul land into private ownership also implicates the constitutional doctrine of public trust. The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 held that certain resources are held by the State in trust for the benefit of the public and cannot be disposed of in a manner detrimental to public interest. Although the doctrine was articulated in the context of environmental resources, its underlying rationale applies with equal force to public lands situated in strategic urban locations. Government authorities act merely as trustees and not as absolute owners. Consequently, alienation of valuable Nazul properties without strict adherence to law may constitute a breach of the State's fiduciary obligations toward the public. XI. THE UTTAR PRADESH NAZUL PROPERTY ORDINANCE, 2024: A LEGISLATIVE SHIFT The promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Nazul Properties (Management and Utilization for Public Purposes) Ordinance, 2024 marks perhaps the most significant policy shift in the history of Nazul land administration in Uttar Pradesh. The Ordinance was notified on 7 March 2024 and was subsequently replaced by the 2024 Bill. Its enactment reflects a clear legislative recognition that the existing framework governing Nazul land had become vulnerable to misuse and that valuable public lands required stronger statutory protection. Legislative Intent Behind the Ordinance The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the legislation reveals the underlying concerns of the State Government. It specifically recognizes the need for reservation of Nazul land for public purposes and refers to the multiplicity of disputes and competing claims that had arisen concerning such properties. The legislation was intended to protect Government interests in Nazul lands and prevent their gradual depletion through private claims and litigation. The policy rationale behind the Ordinance may be understood under four broad heads. First: Prevention of Conversion of Public Assets into Private Ownership The State Government noticed that large tracts of Nazul land situated in prime urban locations had become the subject matter of competing claims for freehold conversion. In many cases, these lands had originally been leased for limited periods but were subsequently sought to be converted into absolute ownership. The Ordinance therefore declared that Nazul land shall not be converted into freehold in favour of private individuals or private entities. The objective was to ensure that Government land remains available for public use rather than permanently passing into private ownership. Second: Reclaiming Government Land After Expiry of Lease A recurring problem in Nazul administration was the assumption that leasehold rights continued indefinitely even after expiry of the original term. The Ordinance reflects a conscious policy decision that upon expiry of lease periods, Nazul land should revert to the State rather than become a source of perpetual private occupation. This approach is consistent with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court which rejects automatic renewal of Government leases. Third: Curbing Land Mafia Activities and Fraudulent Claims Although the Ordinance does not expressly refer to "land mafias", contemporary governmental and public discussions surrounding the legislation repeatedly emphasized concerns regarding illegal occupation and fraudulent claims over Government land. Reports concerning the Bill noted that it was intended to curb encroachments and prevent unauthorized privatization of Nazul properties. The legislative philosophy appears to be that where public land has become vulnerable to manipulation through forged title chains, fabricated succession claims and irregular freehold proceedings, the most effective solution is to prohibit privatization altogether. Fourth: Preservation of Land for Future Public Purposes Perhaps the most important objective of the Ordinance is preservation of scarce urban land for future governmental requirements. The Statement of Objects and Reasons recognizes that Nazul lands constitute an important public resource. As urbanization accelerates and land values continue to increase, the availability of land for: Government offices, Courts, Hospitals, Educational institutions, Infrastructure projects, Public housing schemes, becomes increasingly limited. The Ordinance therefore reflects a shift from a policy of disposal of Nazul land towards a policy of preservation and public utilization. A Legislative Response to Decades of Controversy Viewed in its proper context, the 2024 Ordinance represents far more than a routine land-management measure. It constitutes a legislative acknowledgment that decades of litigation, disputed freehold proceedings, questionable mutations, unauthorized transfers and competing private claims have exposed serious weaknesses in the existing system. In many respects, the Ordinance may be viewed as the State's attempt to restore the original public character of Nazul land and to ensure that Government property is preserved for public purposes rather than becoming a source of enrichment for private parties through irregular administrative processes. The Ordinance recognizes the growing scarcity of public land and seeks to preserve Nazul properties for governmental and public purposes. It reflects legislative acknowledgment that indiscriminate freehold conversion has contributed to depletion of public assets and may have facilitated unauthorized privatization of valuable Government land. The Ordinance therefore represents a corrective response to decades of administrative controversies and judicial interventions concerning Nazul properties. XII. Conclusion The controversy surrounding Nazul land freehold conversion highlights one of the most serious challenges confronting land governances in India. What began as an administrative reform intended to simplify land tenure has, in many cases, become a mechanism through which public property is transferred into private hands through questionable means. The recurring patterns are strikingly similar: fabricated chains of succession, missing title documents, unauthorized assignments, manipulated revenue records, absence of lease renewals, and administrative approval granted despite glaring legal defects. Collectively, these practices undermine the rule of law and jeopardize valuable public assets. The solution lies not merely in stricter scrutiny of individual cases but in structural reform. Digitization of historical records, mandatory verification of title documents, independent legal audits of freehold proceedings, accountability of public officials, and robust criminal investigations into fraudulent transactions are indispensable if public land is to be protected from organized usurpation. Ultimately, Nazul land does not belong to any individual or government functionary. It belongs to the public. The law governing such land must therefore be interpreted and enforced in a manner that safeguards public interest, preserves governmental assets, and prevents their gradual transfer into the hands of land mafias under the guise of administrative regularization. Written By: Akhand Pratap Singh Chauhan Advocate Partner (Litigation) Maheshwari & Co.

Argus Partners is pleased to announce that it has advised Chiratae Ventures on its investment in TakeMe2Space (TM2Space Technologies Private Limited), as part of the company’s approximately USD 5 million funding round. The round was led by Chiratae Ventures, with participation from existing investors Unicorn India Ventures, Artha Venture Fund and SeaFund. TakeMe2Space is a space technology company focused on developing and manufacturing low-earth orbit satellite infrastructure to power orbital data centres. The company has developed a software stack for in-orbit onboard computing, enabling customers to deploy and run artificial intelligence models directly on satellites. Through its innovative technology, TakeMe2Space aims to make space-based computing and data processing more accessible and commercially viable. The fresh capital will support the company’s next phase of growth, including scaling its satellite infrastructure capabilities, advancing the development of India’s first orbital AI laboratory, and accelerating innovation in space-based computing technologies. The team at Argus Partners advising Chiratae Ventures consisted of Ashwin Krishnan, Jaidrath Zaveri (Partners) and Nivrithi Kumar (Associate). Read more at: Economic Times and The New Indian Express.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way decisions are made across critical sectors worldwide. This shift from automation to autonomy presents significant challenges for traditional tort law, which has historically been built around concepts such as human fault, foreseeability and direct causation. Introduction Unlike traditional software systems that operate according to predefined instructions, modern AI systems increasingly rely on machine learning and adaptive decision-making processes. These systems allow them to function with varying degrees of autonomy across sectors such as: Healthcare Transportation Finance Public administration Traditional tort principles evolved in an era where harmful conduct could generally be traced to an identifiable individual or entity. Today, however, many AI systems operate through complex algorithms whose decision-making processes may be difficult to understand even for their developers. The “black box” nature of artificial intelligence complicates efforts to determine fault, establish causation and assign legal responsibility. At the same time, the fragmented AI ecosystem, comprising software developers, data providers, hardware manufacturers and system deployers, further complicates liability assessments. As AI systems continue to exercise greater decision-making authority, legal systems worldwide are increasingly examining whether traditional tort law remains adequate to address AI-related harm.1 The Nature of AI and the Shift from Automation to Autonomy Understanding AI liability requires distinguishing between automated and autonomous systems. Automated vs. Autonomous Systems Automated systems operate according to predefined rules established by human programmers. When harm occurs, liability can generally be traced to programming errors, design defects or human oversight failures. Autonomous systems rely on machine learning and environmental inputs to generate decisions and adapt their behaviour over time. Their outputs may not always be directly predictable because they are based on probabilistic models rather than fixed instructions. This distinction has significant implications for legal liability because traditional tort law assumes a degree of predictability and human control that may not exist in autonomous systems. The Autonomous Vehicle Example The development of autonomous vehicles illustrates this challenge. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) classifies vehicle automation on a scale from Level 0 to Level 5. While Levels 0 to 2 require meaningful human supervision, Levels 3 to 5 increasingly transfer decision-making authority to the vehicle itself. Particularly difficult legal questions arise at the transition between Levels 2 and 3, where human operators remain legally responsible for intervention despite being largely disengaged from active vehicle control. This phenomenon has been described as the “human-machine interaction paradox,” where liability continues to rest on human actors even though critical operational decisions are made by autonomous systems. Tort Law and the Crisis of Traditional Liability Principles Traditional tort law allocates liability through doctrines such as: Negligence Strict liability Product liability These doctrines depend heavily upon concepts of human conduct, reasonable care and foreseeability. Artificial intelligence challenges these assumptions because harmful outcomes may result from algorithmic processes rather than direct human instructions. The Negligence Framework Under Strain The negligence framework is particularly strained because the traditional “reasonable person” standard was developed to evaluate human behaviour. AI systems, however, process information differently and often outperform humans in specific tasks. Some scholars have therefore proposed a “reasonable computer” standard, under which AI behaviour would be assessed against industry standards, accepted technological practices and comparable algorithmic systems rather than human conduct. Foreseeability in an AI Context Foreseeability also becomes more complex in the context of AI. Autonomous systems may achieve their intended objectives while simultaneously producing harmful unintended consequences. For example, a healthcare AI designed to optimise patient triage may incorrectly classify patients, resulting in delayed treatment or medical harm. While the precise outcome may not have been foreseeable, the broader risks associated with deploying autonomous systems may nevertheless be foreseeable to developers and operators. Causation and the But-For Test Causation presents an equally significant challenge. Tort law traditionally relies upon the “but-for” test, requiring claimants to demonstrate that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct. However, AI systems often operate through vast datasets, self-generated correlations and adaptive learning processes that obscure the causal relationship between human design decisions and resulting harm. As a result, victims may be able to demonstrate injury without being able to identify precisely which actor within the AI ecosystem caused the harm. The Black Box Problem and Evidentiary Challenges One of the most significant obstacles in AI liability litigation is the opacity of algorithmic decision-making. Many advanced AI systems, particularly those based on deep learning, do not generate outcomes through transparent rule-based processes. Instead, decisions emerge through multiple layers of internal computational processes that may be difficult or impossible for users, regulators or courts to fully interpret. This creates a substantial information asymmetry between AI developers and those affected by AI-generated decisions. Unlike traditional defective products, which can often be physically inspected and tested, AI-related claims may require access to: Proprietary source code Training datasets System logs Technical documentation Such information is frequently protected as confidential business information or trade secrets. Even where access is available, the non-deterministic nature of many AI systems may make it difficult to reproduce a particular outcome. Consequently, plaintiffs may struggle to satisfy evidentiary burdens relating to negligence, causation and defectiveness. These challenges have prompted increasing calls for greater transparency, explainability and documentation requirements for high-risk AI systems. The Fragmented AI Supply Chain Liability becomes further complicated by the fragmented nature of AI development and deployment. Responsibility may be distributed among multiple actors, including: Data suppliers Software developers Model trainers Hardware manufacturers Deploying entities such as hospitals, banks or transportation companies Traditional tort law generally seeks to identify a proximate cause and a responsible defendant. AI systems, however, function through interconnected technological contributions that blur traditional distinctions between creators, operators and users. This has led scholars and policymakers to explore alternative approaches such as joint liability, enterprise liability and risk-based allocation frameworks. Under such models, liability may be imposed on the entity best positioned to prevent harm, manage risks or compensate victims. The 2018 Uber Autonomous Vehicle Accident The 2018 Uber autonomous vehicle accident illustrates these difficulties. Although the vehicle’s systems detected the pedestrian before impact, technical design choices and disabled safety features contributed to the collision. Yet much of the legal scrutiny focused on the human safety driver rather than the broader technological and organisational factors that contributed to the incident. The case highlighted the continuing challenges associated with assigning responsibility for AI-enabled harm. Comparative Approaches to AI Liability Different jurisdictions have adopted varying approaches to regulating AI-related risks and liability. European Union The European Union has emerged as a global leader in AI regulation through measures such as the EU AI Act and reforms to product liability legislation. These frameworks adopt a risk-based approach and recognise that software and AI-enabled products may generate liability even where traditional product concepts are difficult to apply. The reforms seek to ensure that victims are not deprived of remedies simply because harm was caused by autonomous or self-learning systems. United Kingdom The United Kingdom has adopted a more flexible, principles-based approach. Rather than creating a single AI regulator, the UK relies on existing regulators to apply overarching principles within their respective sectors, including: Safety Transparency Accountability Fairness United States In the United States, AI regulation continues to develop primarily through litigation and sector-specific regulation. Courts have increasingly examined the extent to which manufacturers may be liable when users place excessive reliance on semi-autonomous systems. India India currently lacks a dedicated legal framework governing AI liability. Existing laws address certain aspects of technology regulation but do not comprehensively address liability arising from autonomous decision-making systems. These include: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Information Technology Act, 2000 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 However, India’s jurisprudence on strict and absolute liability may offer useful insights. The doctrine of absolute liability established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India demonstrates the willingness of Indian courts to impose liability on enterprises engaged in inherently hazardous activities. While this doctrine was developed in an environmental context and does not presently apply to AI systems, some scholars have suggested that risk-based liability frameworks may provide a useful model for regulating high-risk AI applications. Conclusion The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has exposed the limitations of traditional tort law principles developed for a world in which human actors exercised direct control over decision-making. Concepts such as negligence, foreseeability and causation remain foundational to civil liability, yet their application becomes increasingly complex when autonomous systems operate through adaptive and often opaque algorithms. The “black box” nature of AI, the fragmented technological supply chain and the growing autonomy of machine-learning systems have created significant accountability challenges. Victims of AI-related harm may struggle to identify the responsible party, establish causation or obtain access to the technical information necessary to prove their claims. Comparative approaches adopted by jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States demonstrate a growing recognition that existing legal frameworks must evolve to address the risks posed by artificial intelligence. While India does not yet have a dedicated AI liability regime, existing principles of tort law, consumer protection and regulatory oversight may provide a foundation for future reforms. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into critical sectors such as healthcare, transportation, finance and public administration, legal systems will need to develop frameworks that balance innovation with accountability. The future of tort liability for artificial intelligence will likely depend on creating mechanisms that ensure effective compensation for victims while promoting responsible development and deployment of AI technologies. By Dhruv Kaushal, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/dhruv-kaushal/