The Constitutional Duty to Explain Automated Decisions: Towards a Right to Reasons in India’s Emerging Algorithmic State

The increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems in public administration has transformed the manner in which governmental decisions are made. While these technologies promise efficiency, consistency, and improved service delivery, they also generate concerns regarding opacity, accountability, and procedural fairness. Decisions concerning welfare benefits, public recruitment, taxation, policing, and other core governmental functions are increasingly influenced by algorithmic processes whose underlying logic may remain inaccessible to affected individuals. This article examines whether Indian constitutional law can respond to this challenge through the recognition of a constitutional right to explanation. Drawing upon constitutional jurisprudence, administrative law principles, comparative regulatory frameworks, and contemporary scholarship on algorithmic governance, the article argues that explainability is not a novel entitlement but a natural extension of existing constitutional guarantees. The paper proceeds in five parts. The first conceptualises algorithmic governance and examines the explainability problem, demonstrating how opacity in automated decision-making can undermine transparency, accountability, and contestability. The second analyses the constitutional foundations of a right to explanation through Article 14, Article 21, and the principles of natural justice, showing that Indian constitutional law already contains the normative basis for explainability. The third explores comparative approaches, including international AI governance frameworks, highlighting the growing recognition of explainability as a safeguard against unaccountable automation. The fourth part forms the doctrinal core of the article, arguing that existing constitutional principles are sufficient to support a right to explanation without requiring either a constitutional amendment or AI-specific legislation. The final part addresses key objections relating to trade secrets, technical complexity, administrative burden, and national security, arguing that none are sufficient to displace the constitutional commitment to fairness and accountability. The article concludes that a constitutional right to explanation is necessary to ensure that the exercise of public power remains intelligible, reviewable, and consistent with the rule of law in India’s emerging algorithmic state.