A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SECULARISM, DATA PROTECTION AND SOCIAL CONFLICT IN DIGITAL AGE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/va5qz147Keywords:
AI, Secularism, DPDP, Bias in Algorithms, Surveillance, PrivacyAbstract
In this rapidly growing age of technology, democratic and secular nations confront many challenges surrounding digital data, technological algorithms, e-governance, and the evolving online public sphere. This research paper undertakes a comparative study of different models of secularism, like laïcité-French model, principled distance approach-Indian model, separationism-American model, and how these foundational models fit into this new regime of technologies. The paper will further delve into the theoretical lineage of modern privacy law with secular-liberal thought, focusing on Warren-Brandeis ' idea for the concretization of privacy as an individual right. Taking this thought further, this paper will analyze why religious identity is sensitive information that leads to bias and other challenges of discrimination.
This research compares the guidelines of different global regimes, like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2016), the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (DPDP Act), and the Digital Service Act (DSA). This paper reveals how each legal system incorporates its secular commitments with evolving technologies. By examining these new developments against growing digital world challenges like AI Surveillance, targeted Profiling, biasness, lack of transparency and accountability, the paper advocates the reassessments of these secular governance models. Looking ahead of time, the research believes that secularism functions as an invisible force, but regulatory systems show us who it is favoring in terms of surveillance, censorship, algorithm bias, and transparency, and there is a need for a comprehensive framework that can harmonize technological advancement with upholding constitutional values.
References
1.Müller, T. (2020). Secularisation theory and its discontents: Recapturing decolonial and gendered narratives. Debate on Jörg Stolz’s article on secularization theories in the 21st century: Ideas, evidence, and problems. Social Compass, 67(3), 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037768620917328
2.Linkov, I., Trump, B., Poinsatte-Jones, K., & Florin, M. (2018). Governance strategies for a sustainable digital world. Sustainability, 10(2), 440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020440
3.Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT Press.
4.Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220.
5.International Journal of Law, Communication & Work. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ijlcw.emnuvens.com.br/revista/article/view/84
6.Bekkum, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2022). Using sensitive data to prevent discrimination by artificial intelligence: Does the GDPR need a new exception? Computer Law & Security Review, 48, 105770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105770
7.Petrolini, M., Cagnoni, S., & Mordonini, M. (2022). Automatic detection of sensitive data using transformer-based classifiers. Future Internet, 14(8), 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi14080228
8.Cabañas, J., Cuevas, Á., & Rumín, R. (2018). Unveiling and quantifying Facebook exploitation of sensitive personal data for advertising purposes. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, 479–495.
9.He, Y. (2024). Artificial intelligence and socioeconomic forces: Transforming the landscape of religion. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03137-8
10.Ferrer, X., Nuenen, T., Such, J. M., Coté, M., & Criado, N. (2021). Bias and discrimination in AI: A cross-disciplinary perspective. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 40(2), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2021.3056293
11.Mann, M., & Matzner, T. (2019). Challenging algorithmic profiling: The limits of data protection and anti-discrimination in responding to emergent discrimination. Big Data & Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719895805
12.Sajir, Z. (2023). A post-secular approach to managing diversity in liberal democracies: Exploring the interplay of human rights, religious identity, and inclusive governance in Western societies. Religions, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14101325
13.Aizenberg, E., & Van Den Hoven, J. (2020). Designing for human rights in AI. Big Data & Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720949566
14.Mukherjee, S. (2025). Algorithmic bias and discrimination: Legal accountability of AI systems. International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Multidisciplinary Physical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.37082/ijirmps.v13.i4.232659
15.Modood, T., & Sealy, T. (2022). Developing a framework for a global comparative analysis of the governance of religious diversity. Religion, State & Society, 50(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2117526
16.Alrawi, A. (2024). Algorithmic profiling and the threat to religious expression: The case of Muslim Pro. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4901654
17.Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
18.Corrêa, N., Galvão, C., Santos, J., Pino, C., Pinto, E., Barbosa, C., Massmann, D., Mambrini, R., Galvao, L., & Terem, E. (2023). Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance. Patterns, 4, 100857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100857
19.Quinn, P. (2020). The difficulty of defining sensitive data—The concept of sensitive data in the EU data protection framework. German Law Journal, 22(8), 1583–1612. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.79
20.Gstrein, O. J., & Beaulieu, A. (2022). How to protect privacy in a datafied society? A presentation of multiple legal and conceptual approaches. Philosophy & Technology, 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00497-4
21.Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225. Retrived from: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
22.Mann, M., Daly, A., Wilson, M., & Suzor, N. (2018). The limits of (digital) constitutionalism: Exploring the privacy-security (im)balance in Australia. International Communication Gazette, 80(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518757141
23.Papakostas, C. (2025). Artificial intelligence in religious education: Ethical, pedagogical, and theological perspectives. Religions, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16050563
24.Afroogh, S., Akbari, A., Malone, E., Kargar, M., & Alambeigi, H. (2024). Trust in AI: Progress, challenges, and future directions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04044-8
25.S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60799/
26.Constitution of India. (1950). Article 14: Equality before law. Government of India.
27.Constitution of India. (1950). Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Government of India.
28.Constitution of India. (1950). Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty. Government of India.
29.Mann, M., & Matzner, T. (2019). Challenging algorithmic profiling: The limits of data protection and anti-discrimination in responding to emergent discrimination. Big Data & Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719895805
