ALGORITHMIC GOVERNANCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Keywords:
algorithmic governance, automated decision-making, due process, artificial intelligence law, India, Uzbekistan, administrative law reform, transparency, accountability, procedural fairness, constitutional limits, GDPRAbstract
Artificial intelligence isn’t just a buzzword anymore, it’s running the show in public administration. Governments everywhere now use algorithms to decide who gets welfare, how risky your taxes look, who’s next in line for public housing, and even questions about immigration and criminal sentencing. This shift raises some serious constitutional issues. When machines take over jobs that used to belong to human officials, what happens to our rights? Let’s break it down. The first problem is due process, people should know what’s being decided about them, have a chance to speak up, and be able to challenge decisions. But with algorithms, these basic rights get shaky, because the logic behind the outcome is often a black box. Then there’s the question of separation of powers. These complex models make big decisions with almost no human oversight, shifting real authority to systems that no one really understands or monitors.
Downloads
References
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2018). Guidelines on automated individual decision-making and profiling (WP251rev.01). Brussels.
Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–33.
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Cummings, M. L. (2004). Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-6313
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Official Journal of the EU, L 119, 1–88.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Official Journal of the EU.
Government of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat. (2019). Directive on Automated Decision-Making. Ottawa.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
Ledgerwood v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, No. 4:17-cv-00780 (E.D. Ark. 2019).
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India).
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. (2018). Report of the Committee of Experts on Data Protection (Srikrishna Committee Report). Government of India.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983).
New Zealand Government. (2020). Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand. Statistics New Zealand.
OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD/LEGAL/0449. OECD.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 (India).
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. SHS/BIO/PI/2021/1.
UNDP. (2023). Rapid assessment of AI governance and data protection in Uzbekistan's public sector. UNDP Uzbekistan.
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. (2021). Mapping the use of AI in government: An exploratory analysis.
Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz [German Administrative Procedure Act] (BGBl. I p. 102, as amended 2021, § 35a).
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841–887.
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
World Bank. (2021). Uzbekistan digital economy diagnostic. World Bank Group.