Beyond Encryption: Quantum-Ready Surveillance and the Constitutional Limits of the Digital State

The architecture of surveillance is approaching a profound technological and normative transition. Artificial intelligence can already infer, classify and monitor human behaviour at unprecedented scale; biometric identification, large-scale data integration and algorithmic inference can expand the State’s capacity to identify, correlate and profile individuals. Quantum computing introduces a different but related challenge by threatening the cryptographic assumptions upon which the confidentiality and authenticity of digital life have long depended. Post-quantum cryptography (PQC) responds principally to that cybersecurity problem: it protects confidentiality, authentication and integrity against quantum-capable adversaries, but does not itself enlarge the State’s capacity to collect or infer information. This article therefore uses “quantum-ready surveillance” to describe surveillance infrastructures in which capability-expanding technologies operate within quantum-resilient security architectures, while keeping those functions analytically distinct.
The study argues that quantum readiness presents a governance paradox, not because PQC itself creates new surveillance powers, but because more durable and quantum-resilient infrastructures may secure and preserve surveillance data generated through AI, biometrics, interoperable databases and large-scale collection. In an environment of “harvest now, decrypt later,” algorithmic decision-making and increasingly integrated governmental information systems, the constitutional problem concerns both the expansion of surveillance capability and the security architecture within which collected information is transmitted, authenticated and retained. Drawing upon India as the principal case study, with the United States and European Union as structured comparators, the article evaluates these developments against legality, necessity, proportionality, transparency, explainability and independent oversight.
The article finds that the principal deficit is not merely technological preparedness but governance preparedness. Existing legal regimes remain fragmented, territorially bounded and institutionally uneven, while quantum-resilient digital infrastructures and AI-enabled surveillance operate across borders and institutional boundaries. It therefore advances an eight-component rights-centred model: technological resilience and crypto-agility; constitutional legality; privacy and rights by design; accountable AI; institutional accountability; risk-tiered governance; international interoperability; and technological equity. These components are operationalised through an integrated governance cycle—Resilience → Legality → Necessity → Privacy by Design → Risk Classification → Authorization → Auditability → Independent Oversight → Redress → Periodic Review → International Interoperability. Quantum security and human freedom need not be competing objectives; legitimacy depends upon ensuring that a quantum-secure State remains constitutionally restrained and democratically accountable.

Quantum-Ready Surveillance; Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC); Artificial Intelligence and Surveillance; Privacy and Human Dignity; Constitutional Proportionality; Ethical Governance;]

1. Sr. Professor, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati. Any suggestions, criticism and critical appreciation may be reached at vijuchowbe@gmail.com. © authors. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Assistant Professor, Shri Rajasthani Seva Sangh Law College, Mumbai and Registered research Scholar at Research Centre (522), Dept of Law, SGB Amravati University Amravati with title “Contested terrain: A comparative analysis of policy framing, affirmative action, and legal protection for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes in India.” [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity. (2024). ENISA Threat Landscape 2024. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity, pp. 6–9. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-threat-landscape-2024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Buchanan, W., & Woodward, A. (2017). Will quantum computers be the end of public key encryption? Journal of Cyber Security Technology, 1(1), 1-22. Retrieved from, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23742917.2016.1226650 Visited on 12.02.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). What is post-quantum cryptography? U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from, https://www.nist.gov/cybersecurity-and-privacy/what-post-quantum-cryptography. Visited on 26.05.2026. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bernstein, D. J., & Lange, T. (2017). Post-quantum cryptography. Nature, 549(7671), 188–194. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Mosca, M. (2018). Cybersecurity in an era with quantum computers: Will we be ready? IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(5), 38–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Aldossary, S. M., & Kolhar, M. (2026). Quantum Sentinel Framework: Machine Learning-Based Detection and Mitigation of Quantum-Vulnerable Cryptography. Retrieved from, https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8777424/v1/f5794192-b482-470c-9b29-f6a88d8ac492.pdf Visited on 14.05.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kuner, C. (2021). Transborder data flows and data privacy law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 41(3), 530–557. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Mantelero, A. (2022). AI and Human Rights: The balancing act. Computer Law & Security Review, 45, 105692. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. See, for more details, NIST selected CRYSTALS-Kyber and CRYSTALS-Dilithium for standardization in 2022; the final standards were issued on 13 August 2024 as FIPS 203 (ML-KEM, derived from Kyber), FIPS 204 (ML-DSA, derived from Dilithium) and FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA, derived from SPHINCS+) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Shor, P. (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring. Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 124–134. IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mosca, M. (2018). Cybersecurity in an era with quantum computers: Will we be ready? IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(5), 38–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Bernstein, D. J., & Lange, T. (2017). Post-quantum cryptography. Nature, 549(7671), 188–194. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2022). Status Report on the Third Round of the NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization Process, NIST IR 8413. Kyber, Dilithium and SPHINCS+ were selected for standardization in 2022; final FIPS 203, 204 and 205 were published on 13 August 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lyon, D. (2022). Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Creemers, R. (2022). China’s social credit system: An evolving practice of control. Information & Communications Technology Law, 31(1), 1–20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kuner, C. (2021). Transborder data flows and data privacy law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 41(3), 530–557. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Casey, E. (2022). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime (4th ed.). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Gunning, D., & Aha, D. (2021). DARPA’s explainable AI (XAI) program. AI Magazine, 42(2), 56–65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. hang, Y., Wang, C., & Zhou, J. (2022). Blockchain forensics: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 17, 1265–1279. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. European Commission. (2023). Quantum Flagship: Building Europe’s Quantum Future. Brussels. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Government of India. (2023). Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. New Delhi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. NATO CCDCOE. (2023). Locked Shields Cyber Defence Exercise: Annual Report. Tallinn. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mantelero, A. (2022). AI and human rights: The balancing act. Computer Law & Security Review, 45, 105692 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Nye, J. (2022). The Digital and Cybersecurity Challenge to National Security. Harvard Kennedy School. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Singer, P. W., & Friedman, A. (2014). Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. UN Treaty Series, Vol. 999. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). (2021). FISA Section 702 and Mass Surveillance. San Francisco. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Government of India. (2023). Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. New Delhi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Creemers, R. (2022). China’s cybersecurity regime. Journal of Cyber Policy, 7(1), 85–104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Richardson, R., Schultz, J. M., & Crawford, K. (2019). Dirty data, bad predictions: How civil rights are violated by predictive policing systems. NYU Law Review Online, 94, 15–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mantelero, A. (2022). AI and Human Rights: The balancing act. Computer Law & Security Review, 45, 105692. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], Applications Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 25 May 2021, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0525JUD005817013; [2021] ECHR 439. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom, ECHR, App Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15 (2021). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Casey, E. (2022). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime (4th ed.). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Bentham, J. (1789/2007). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Dover Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Richardson, R., Schultz, J. M., & Crawford, K. (2019). Dirty data, bad predictions: How civil rights are violated by predictive policing systems. NYU Law Review Online, 94, 15–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. United Nations General Assembly, 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNGA Res. 217 A (III). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Kuner, C. (2021). Transborder data flows and data privacy law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 41(3), 530–557. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], Applications Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 25 May 2021, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0525JUD005817013; [2021] ECHR 439. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom, ECHR, App Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15 (2021). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Bhandari, V., & Sinha, A. (2023). Data protection in India after DPDP Act: Promise and perils. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 19(2), 67–94 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Wheatley, M. C. (2024). Ethics of surveillance technologies: Balancing privacy and security in a digital age. Premier Journal of Data Science, 1, 100001. Retrieved from, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mary-Wheatley-2/publication/391641800_Ethics_of_Surveillance_Technologies_Balancing_Privacy_and_Security_in_a_Digital_Age/links/696cea50c906f117f2a6c0f0/Ethics-of-Surveillance-Technologies-Balancing-Privacy-and-Security-in-a-Digital-Age.pdf Visited on 11.09.2025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Ramanathan, U. (2020). Aadhaar: Governing with biometrics. Seminar, 734, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Greenwald, G. (2014). No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Metropolitan Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2021). Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Kuner, C. (2021). Transborder data flows and data privacy law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 41(3), 530–557. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Greenleaf, G. (2021). Global data privacy laws 2021: Despite COVID delays, 145 laws show GDPR dominance. Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 168, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Nye, J. (2022). The Digital and Cybersecurity Challenge to National Security. Harvard Kennedy School. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Casey, E. (2022). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime (4th ed.). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Mantelero, A. (2022). AI and Human Rights: The balancing act. Computer Law & Security Review, 45, 105692. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on Cybercrime, European Treaty Series No. 185, Budapest, 23 November 2001, Preamble, pp. 1–2. Council of Europe Treaty Office. See, https://rm.coe.int/1680081561 Visited on 22.03.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). United Nations Convention against Cybercrime; Strengthening International Cooperation for Combating Certain Crimes Committed by Means of Information and Communications Technology Systems and for the Sharing of Evidence in Electronic Form of Serious Crimes, G.A. Res. 79/243, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/243, 24 December 2024, arts. 1, 35–40. United Nations. Retrieved from, https://docs.un.org/A/RES/79/243 Visited on 19.04.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 41st Session, 23 November 2021, paras. 25–27, pp. 20–21. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137 Visited on 26.04.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, G.A. Res. 79/243, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/243, 24 December 2024, Chapter V, arts. 35–40. Retrieved from, https://docs.un.org/A/RES/79/243 Visited on 27.01.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, paras. 37–41, pp. 22–23. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137 Visited on 29.03.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, paras. 42–43, pp. 23–24. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Pact for the Future, Annex I: Global Digital Compact, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, adopted 22 September 2024, Annex I, paras. 1–7. United Nations, pp. 37–38. Retrieved from, https://docs.un.org/A/RES/79/1 Visited on 31.03.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Global Digital Compact, Annex I to Pact for the Future, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, 22 September 2024, paras. 37–40. United Nations. Retrieved from, https://docs.un.org/A/RES/79/1 visited on 21.08.2026. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Global Digital Compact, Annex I to Pact for the Future, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, 22 September 2024, paras. 2–3, 10–17. United Nations. Retrieved from, https://docs.un.org/A/RES/79/1 Visited on 14.05.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 1–22; See also, Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class, 60(4), 3–26. Retrieved from, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172 Visited on 01.02.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Global Digital Compact, Annex I to Pact for the Future, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, 22 September 2024, paras. 2, 10–17, 63–65. United Nations. Retrieved from, https://docs.un.org/A/RES/79/1 Visited on 28.05.2026. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, paras. 25–28, 32–43, pp. 20–24. See also, Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137; United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Global Digital Compact, Annex I to Pact for the Future, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, 22 September 2024, Annex I. Retrieved from, https://docs.un.org/A/RES/79/1 Visited on 05.05.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). FIPS 203: Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard; FIPS 204: Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard; FIPS 205: Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Standard, 13 August 2024. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. (2026). Quantum Safe Ecosystem in India: Report of the Task Force on Post-Quantum Migration. National Quantum Mission, Government of India. https://dst.gov.in/quantum-safe-ecosystem-in-india [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, adopted by the General Conference at its 41st Session, 23 November 2021, paras. 32–35, pp. 21–22. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, paras. 37–43, pp. 22–24. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], Applications Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 25 May 2021, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0525JUD005817013; [2021] ECHR 439. Apps. Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 & 24960/15, Judgment of 25 May 2021, ECHR 439, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0525JUD005817013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Global Digital Compact, Annex I to Pact for the Future, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, adopted 22 September 2024. United Nations. https://www.un.org/pact-for-the-future/en/annex-i-global-digital-compact [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Global Digital Compact, Annex I to Pact for the Future, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, 22 September 2024, paras. 10–17, 63–65. United Nations. https://www.un.org/pact-for-the-future/en/annex-i-global-digital-compact [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). FIPS 203: Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard; FIPS 204: Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard; FIPS 205: Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Standard, 13 August 2024. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography Visited on 11.03.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. (2023). National Quantum Mission. Government of India. Retrieved from, https://dst.gov.in/node/7223. Visited on 26.03.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. (2026). Quantum Safe Ecosystem in India: Report of the Task Force on Post-Quantum Migration. National Quantum Mission, Department of Science and Technology. Retrieved from, https://dst.gov.in/quantum-safe-ecosystem-in-india Visited on 26.05.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) & SISA. (2025). Transitioning to Quantum Cyber Readiness. CERT-In, Government of India. Retrieved from, https://www.cert-in.org.in/ Visited on 26.04.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Global Digital Compact, Annex I to Pact for the Future, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, 22 September 2024. Retrieved from, https://www.un.org/pact-for-the-future/en/annex-i-global-digital-compact Visited on 15.08.2025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. (2026). Quantum Safe Ecosystem in India: Report of the Task Force on Post-Quantum Migration. National Quantum Mission. Retrieved from, https://dst.gov.in/quantum-safe-ecosystem-in-india Visited on 15.05.2026. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. See, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). (2025). Technical Guidelines, Version 2.0, 9 July 2025, paras. 8.4.2.8–8.5.4, p. 51. Government of India. Retrieved from, https://www.cert-in.org.in/ Visited on 20.04.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). NIST IR 8547: Transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards, Initial Public Draft. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from, https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8547.ipd Visited on 28.06.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. (2026). Quantum Safe Ecosystem in India. Retrieved from, https://dst.gov.in/quantum-safe-ecosystem-in-india Visited on 24.05.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Global Digital Compact, Annex I to Pact for the Future, G.A. Res. 79/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/79/1, 22 September 2024. Retrieved from, https://www.un.org/pact-for-the-future/en/annex-i-global-digital-compact [Google Scholar] [Crossref]