Source: The Indian Express

Introduction

The adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in India's judiciary is on the rise, offering transformative possibilities in case management, legal research, and document analysis. While some Indian courts have embraced ChatGPT for various legal tasks, there is variability among High Courts in their acceptance and utilization of such AI technologies within the legal framework.

• The Manipur High Court mentioned its reliance on Google and ChatGPT 3.5 for additional research while adjudicating a case, highlighting a growing trend of AI utilization in Indian courts, albeit with a prevailing sense of caution akin to global judicial sentiments regarding AI integration.
• This decision follows the pioneering initiative of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which implemented this innovative approach to conduct legal research last year.

What is the Background of Md. Zakir Hussain v. The State of Manipur & Others ?

• Zakir Hussain, 36, was dismissed from the Village Defence Force (VDF) in January 2021 after an alleged criminal escaped while he was on duty.
• Hussain challenged dismissal in Manipur High Court; Justice A Guneshwar Sharma directed police to detail dismissal procedure.
• The affidavit submitted by police lacked clarity and didn't explain VDF; the Court turned to ChatGPT for further research.
• ChatGPT revealed VDF comprises local volunteers trained to guard against threats; Justice Sharma used this in ruling.
• Hussain's dismissal was set aside; Court cited the 2022 Manipur Home Department memorandum stating that dismissed personnel must have the opportunity to explain alleged charges, which Hussain was denied.

How Do Different High Courts Vary in their Attitudes Towards the Utilization of ChatGPT Within the Legal Process?

Punjab & Haryana High Court

• March 2023: Justice Anoop Chitkara of Punjab & Haryana High Court used ChatGPT to deny bail to Jaswinder Singh accused of assault leading to death.
• Justice Chitkara sought ChatGPT's input on jurisprudence regarding bail in cases involving cruelty in assaults.
• ChatGPT's response highlighted the Judges' cautious approach, possibly denying bail or setting high bail amounts.
• Court clarified that ChatGPT's input was for broader legal context, not case-specific opinion.
• This instance showcases the High Court's use of AI for legal research to supplement judicial reasoning.

Delhi High Court

• August 2023: Justice Pratibha M Singh of Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Christian Louboutin in a trademark case.
• Louboutin's legal team used ChatGPT-generated responses to demonstrate the brand's reputation for its "spike shoe style" with a "red sole," which being copied by another brand called Shutiq.
• Justice Singh, however, rejected the use of ChatGPT for deciding legal or factual issues in court, citing concerns about potential inaccuracies, fictional case laws, and imaginative data generated by AI chatbots.
• This case exemplifies the Delhi High Court's cautious approach towards AI integration in legal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of human judgment over AI-generated content in court decisions.

What is the Current Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Judicial Proceedings in Jurisdictions Outside of India?

• In 2023, a Manhattan federal judge fined a lawyer $5,000 for submitting fictitious legal research generated by ChatGPT.
  • The lawyer included fictitious cases like "Varghese vs China Southern Airlines" and "Shaboon vs Egypt Air" in a personal injury suit involving Avianca, a Colombian airline.
• In December of the same year, the UK judiciary issued guidelines on generative AI in courts.
  • While judges were permitted to employ ChatGPT for basic tasks such as summarizing texts, creating presentations, or drafting emails, they were cautioned against using AI for legal research or analysis.
• These instances underscore the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI-generated content in judicial proceedings both in the United States and the United Kingdom.
• As of now, there are no specific guidelines in India regarding the use of generative AI, like ChatGPT, in judicial proceedings.

What is the Potential and Scope for Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the Judicial System?

• Research Tool: AI virtual assistants expedite legal research by processing vast amounts of data like case law, aiding legal professionals and researchers in efficient information retrieval.
• Systemic Augmentation: Court systems can benefit from AI upgrades, similar to UK initiatives, enhancing case management, organization, and administrative tasks through automation and streamlined workflows.
• Translation: Advanced AI translation tools, like SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), break language barriers in the judicial system, facilitating the translation of legal content, thereby promoting equity, transparency, and broader access to justice.
• AI Prediction: Predictive AI applications analyze case trends and sentencing, enhancing decision-making processes within judicial systems. However, responsible usage is paramount to ensure fairness and accountability, addressing ethical concerns and algorithmic biases.

What are the Challenges for Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the Judicial System?

• Accuracy: AI technologies aren't infallible, as acknowledged by tech companies themselves. OpenAI, for instance, highlights in its terms of use that output may not always be accurate and shouldn't be relied upon as the sole source of truth or professional advice.
• AI System Bias and Risk: Inherent biases in AI systems pose significant risks, particularly in areas like crime mapping and prediction. Studies in the US have revealed racial profiling and disproportionate targeting of minorities. Dependence on AI for legal tasks could challenge the principles of equity, justice, and fairness.
• Protection of Rights: Ambiguities and challenges persist regarding the safety, privacy, ethics, and protection of fundamental rights like the right to life when applying AI within legal systems. These complexities underscore the need for careful consideration and ethical oversight in AI integration.

Conclusion

While the adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in India's judiciary presents promising opportunities for efficiency and access to justice, it also raises significant challenges. The varying attitudes of Indian High Courts towards AI utilization underscore the need for clear guidelines and cautious implementation. Globally, recent cases from the US and UK highlight the legal and ethical complexities surrounding AI-generated content in judicial proceedings. As India navigates the potential and scope of AI adoption in its judicial system, ensuring accuracy, mitigating bias, and protecting fundamental rights remain paramount considerations for a balanced and effective integration of AI technology.