Panel recommends mandatory licensing framework for AI training on copyrighted content
New Delhi: A committee set up by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has proposed a mandatory blanket licensing system requiring AI developers to compensate copyright holders for using their work to train large language models. The panel, formed to assess how emerging AI technologies intersect with copyright law, released its working paper for public consultation on the DPIIT website. Feedback has been invited within 30 days from December 8 at the designated email address.
The committee, chaired by DPIIT Additional Secretary Himani Pande and comprising legal and technical experts, examined whether India’s existing copyright framework is adequate or requires amendments in light of rapid advances in AI, as reported by Bar&Bench. During consultations, most stakeholders from the AI industry argued for a blanket Text and Data Mining exception that would permit unrestricted training on copyrighted material. In contrast, content creators and rights holders advocated for a voluntary licensing regime.
In its paper, the committee said a broad TDM exception would weaken copyright protection and leave creators without any recourse for compensation. It noted that such a system would be unsuitable for a country with a large cultural economy and a rapidly expanding content sector. The option of allowing creators to opt out was also rejected. The panel observed that small creators would be at a disadvantage due to limited awareness and an inability to monitor whether their work had been used despite opting out.
As the committee concluded that withholding works entirely from AI training would restrict access to diverse and high-quality datasets, it recommended a hybrid model under which all lawfully accessed copyrighted content can be used for AI training to strike a balance, but with a statutory remuneration right for copyright holders.
The panel proposed that the Central government designate a central non-profit body to collect royalties from AI developers and distribute them to rights holders. Only one representative body per class of work would be allowed, either a registered copyright society or a collective management organisation. The entity, tentatively named the Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT), would maintain a database where creators can register their works. A government-appointed commission would determine royalty rates. A portion of the revenue generated by AI systems trained on protected content would also be distributed proportionally.
Avoiding exposing technical or sensitive information, AI developers would be expected to identify the categories, nature, and general sources of the content used in training datasets. The panel further noted that this would ensure transparency while keeping proprietary details protected.
Industry body Nasscom registered its dissent, stating that rights holders should receive explicit statutory protection against data mining. The panel members were Simrat Kaur, Anurag Kumar, advocates Ameet Datta and Adarsh Ramanujan, Raman Mittal, Chockalingam M, and Sudipto Banerjee.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
