ALGORITHMIC GOVERNANCE AND THE CRISIS OF LEGAL MORALITY: REVISITING THE HART–FULLER DEBATE IN AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into governmental and administrative decision-making has transformed the traditional understanding of law, governance, and accountability. From predictive policing and automated welfare distribution to algorithmic risk assessments and digital surveillance mechanisms, contemporary states increasingly rely upon automated systems to exercise public power. This technological transition raises significant jurisprudential concerns regarding legality, transparency, fairness, and moral legitimacy. Against this backdrop, the enduring debate between H.L.A. Hart and Lon L. Fuller acquires renewed relevance in evaluating the normative foundations of algorithmic governance. This article critically examines whether automated decision-making systems satisfy the essential requirements of legality and justice in modern constitutional democracies. Drawing upon Hart’s theory of legal positivism and Fuller’s conception of the “inner morality of law,” the paper explores the extent to which algorithmic systems conform to principles such as transparency, consistency, intelligibility, accountability, and procedural fairness. While Hart’s positivist framework may validate algorithmic authority based upon institutional recognition and procedural validity, Fuller’s theory questions whether opaque and unexplainable systems can possess genuine legal legitimacy in the absence of moral coherence and public accessibility. The article further analyses the constitutional implications of algorithmic governance in the context of privacy rights, due process, discrimination, and the rule of law, with particular reference to emerging regulatory approaches in India and the United States. It argues that unchecked algorithmic governance risks creating a system of “mechanized legality,” where technical efficiency supersedes democratic accountability and human dignity. Through a comparative and interdisciplinary approach, the paper ultimately contends that contemporary AI regulation must move beyond purely positivist models and incorporate substantive moral safeguards to preserve constitutional values in the digital age.