What India can learn from EU’s AI reset

Opinion What India can learn from EU's AI reset The EU has shown that even a major regulatory framework can be revised.

Key points

• 3 min readAug 24, 2026 06: 21 AM IST First published on: Aug 24, 2026 at 06: 21 AM IST.
• The EU AI Act was presented as a landmark effort to regulate AI through a risk-based framework.
• The first lesson for India is that good regulation must be capable of learning.
• The EU has shown that even a major regulatory framework can be revised.
• The debate over AI is often presented as a choice between regulation and innovation.

For India, this offers an significant lesson. The question is how to regulate AI without slowing innovation. (Reuters). Written by: Sakti Prasad Srichandan.

Meanwhile, the EU AI Act was presented as a landmark effort to regulate AI through a risk-based framework. But The EU's AI Omnibus, which entered into force on July 27, changes parts of the AI Act. It extends some deadlines and simplifies some compliance requirements. It additionally gives regulators and businesses more time to prepare for high-risk AI rules. This is not a retreat from regulation. It is an admission that AI is changing faster than laws can normally change.

For India, this offers an significant lesson. The question is how to regulate AI without slowing innovation. The original EU AI Act was based on a risk-based approach. Some AI practices were prohibited. High-risk systems faced strict obligations. General-purpose AI models additionally came under specific rules. But implementation has proved tough. The EU's response demonstrates that even carefully designed regulation must be capable of adjustment.

Meanwhile, the first lesson for India is that good regulation must be capable of learning. Technology changes. Risks change. Regulators must have the ability to review and adjust rules. Regulation should be a continuing process.

India has so far followed a different path. It has focused on responsible AI, innovation and sector-specific governance rather than creating a comprehensive AI law. This flexibility can be useful but it should not become uncertainty. Businesses need clarity. Citizens need protection. Regulators need clear responsibilities. The regulatory burden should depend on potential harm. The greater the risk to individuals and society, the stronger the safeguards should be.

Meanwhile, the second lesson is that regulation needs an escape valve. Rules work only when regulators and firms have the capacity to implement them. India should consider regulatory sandboxes and regular reviews of AI rules. Sunset mechanisms could create regulation more responsive.

In practice, the third lesson reservations smaller businesses. Compliance can be expensive. Sizeable technology businesses can hire lawyers, engineers and auditors. Start-ups cannot always do so. Excessive compliance costs could unintentionally favour sizeable businesses and reduce competition.

Notably, the fourth lesson is that simplification must not mean deregulation. Reducing paperwork is different from reducing safeguards. AI can create serious risks involving privacy, discrimination, manipulation and opaque decision-making. India must ensure that simpler regulation does not mean weaker protection.

For context, the fifth lesson is institutional. The EU has shown that even a major regulatory framework can be revised. Regulatory maturity means recognising when rules are not working and changing them.

India has its own strengths. It has a sizeable digital population; experience with digital public infrastructure. It has a growing technology sector and experience in deploying digital services at scale. These can backing an adaptive Indian model of AI governance.

In practice, the IndiaAI Mission can play an significant role. So can regulatory sandboxes, sectoral regulators, research institutions and industry bodies. India should create a framework that protects citizens while allowing experimentation. Above all, it should be capable of changing as technology changes.

Notably, the debate over AI is often presented as a choice between regulation and innovation. That is a false choice. The challenge is to design regulation that makes innovation safer and more trusted. The writer is assistant professor, School of International Studies, JNU.

For now, what India can learn from EU's AI reset remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.