A federated architecture for sector-led AI governance: lessons from India
Authors: Avinash Agarwal, Manisha J. Nene
Organizations: Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi, India · Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, Ministry of Defence, Girinagar, Pune, India
Purpose: India has adopted a vertical, sector-led AI governance strategy. While promoting innovation, such a light-touch approach risks policy fragmentation. This paper aims to propose a cohesive "whole-of-government" architecture to mitigate these risks and connect policy goals with a practical implementation plan. Design/methodology/approach: The paper applies an established five-layer conceptual framework to the Indian context. First, it constructs a national architecture for overall governance. Second, it uses a detailed case study on AI incident management to validate and demonstrate the architecture's practical utility in designing a specific, operational system. Findings: The paper develops two actionable architectures. The primary model assigns clear governance roles to India's key institutions. The second is a detailed, federated architecture for national AI Incident Management. It addresses the data silo problem by using a common national standard that allows sector-specific data collection while facilitating cross-sectoral analysis. Practical implications: The proposed architectures offer a clear and predictable roadmap for India's policymakers, regulators and industry to accelerate the national AI governance agenda. Social implications: By providing a systematic path from policy to practice, the architecture builds public trust. This structured approach ensures accountability and aligns AI development with societal values. Originality/value: This paper proposes a detailed operational architecture for India's "whole-of-government" approach to AI. It offers a globally relevant template for any nation pursuing a sector-led governance model, providing a clear implementation plan. Furthermore, the proposed federated architecture demonstrates how adopting common standards can enable cross-border data aggregation and global sectoral risk analysis without centralising control.
Artificial intelligence governance studies how laws, institutions, and technical controls shape AI development, deployment, accountability, and social effects.
Artificial intelligence presents an unusually difficult problem for global governance. The technology develops rapidly, crosses borders easily, and is shaped by actors whose resources and capabilities may rival those of states. Yet international responses remain fragmented, unevenly representative, and overwhelmingly non-binding. The challenge is therefore not simply to identify appropriate rules or institutions, but to understand who has the capacity and incentive to create, enforce, and adapt them. This review essay examines these questions through Matthijs Maas's Architectures of Global AI Governance. Maas offers an ambitious framework for thinking about AI governance through the lenses of sociotechnical change, governance disruption, and regime complexity. His account usefully resists both technological determinism and the search for a single institutional blueprint, emphasizing instead the possibilities of a fragmented and evolving governance architecture. The essay argues, however, that institutional design cannot be separated from the distribution of power. Maas frequently invokes what "we" should do about AI, but that collective subject obscures important differences among states, international institutions, and technology companies. States retain formidable powers over markets, infrastructure, strategic inputs, and firms themselves. At the same time, many consequential decisions about frontier AI - what is built, how quickly, with what safeguards, and when it is released - are concentrated within a small number of private companies. The central problem of global AI governance may therefore be less architecture without an architect than an emerging architecture shaped by multiple actors possessing different forms of power, divergent incentives, and no common set of plans.
Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly embedded in high-stakes decision environments, yet many governance approaches focus primarily on policy guidance rather than operational stability mechanisms. As AI deployments scale, organizations require governance architectures capable of maintaining reliable, auditable, and accountable behavior over time. This paper introduces the AI Governance Control Stack for Operational Stability, a layered governance architecture designed to ensure traceable and resilient AI system behavior. The proposed control stack integrates six complementary governance layers: system-of-record version governance, evidence-based verification, decision-time explainability logging, telemetry monitoring, model drift detection, and governance escalation. Together, these layers provide a structured mechanism for preserving governance integrity across the AI lifecycle while enabling organizations to detect instability, respond to emerging risks, and maintain regulatory accountability. The architecture aligns operational governance practices with emerging regulatory and standards frameworks, including the EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management Systems, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. By combining explainability infrastructure with continuous monitoring and human oversight mechanisms, the governance control stack provides a practical blueprint for achieving hardened AI governance in complex enterprise environments. The paper contributes a conceptual governance architecture and a framework alignment analysis demonstrating how operational stability mechanisms can strengthen responsible AI implementation. The findings suggest that organizations must move beyond static policy frameworks toward integrated governance control systems capable of sustaining trustworthy AI operation in dynamic environments.
The governance of frontier general-purpose artificial intelligence has become a public-sector problem of institutional design, not merely a technical issue of model performance. Recent evidence indicates that AI capabilities are advancing rapidly, though unevenly, while knowledge about harms, safeguards, and effective interventions remains partial and lagged. This combination creates a difficult policy condition: governments must decide under uncertainty, across multiple plausible trajectories of progress through 2030, and in environments where adoption outcomes depend on organizational routines, data arrangements, accountability structures, and public values. This article argues that public governance for frontier AI should be based on adaptive risk management, scenario-aware regulation, and sociotechnical transformation rather than static compliance models. Drawing on the International AI Safety Report 2026, OECD foresight and policy documents, and recent scholarship in digital government, the article first reconstructs the conceptual foundations of the 'evidence dilemma', differentiated AI risk categories, and the limits of prediction. It then examines how AI adoption in government depends on organizational redesign, public-sector institutional dynamics, and data collaboration capacity. On that basis, it proposes an adaptive governance framework for public institutions that integrates capability monitoring, risk tiering, conditional controls, institutional learning, and standards-based interoperability. The article concludes that effective AI governance requires stronger policy capacity, clearer allocation of responsibility, and governance mechanisms that remain robust across divergent technological futures.