AI and the Law: Balancing Innovation and justice

Author: Tems Das, National law University Tripura

To the point

For much the same reason that judges interpret and define abstract concepts and provide precedent for common legal understanding, AI must be demystified for legal utility, clarity, and predictability. Fortunately, the legal community does not face this task alone. The demystification of AI invigorates philosophers, sociologists, computer scientists, and popular culture. Across disciplines, artificial intelligence represents provocative concepts that elude a universally agreed-upon definition or characterization. Artificial intelligence sometimes refers to a singular product or entity, such as ChatGPT. However, it can also describe a goal-driven field of study, typically in computer science or philosophy, which aims to build or understand a particular type of system. A meaningful portion of the literature places AI within a quartet of categories, providing a starting point for further investigation. This quartet is as follows: systems that think like humans, systems that act like humans, systems that think rationally, or systems that act rationally.[2] The law may require multiple definitions based on the AI’s functions or form of computation.[1] Fully exploring the range of AI definitions exceeds the scope of this article; instead, providing a basic definition will foster mutual understanding and create a basis for future understanding.[3] In the pursuit of a utilitarian definition of AI for the purpose of this article, we turn to law professor Harry Surden, who has demystified the term and provided utility for lawyers. He describes AI technology automating a task typically requiring human intelligence.[4] Professor Surden’s definition fits somewhere in the quartet; more importantly, it can be used to address policy issues and avoid meaningful but speculative futuristic discussion.[4] This definition forms a foundation for the collection of articles in this issue.



Use of legal jargon

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and law intersect at a point where technological innovation meets legal accountability. In simple terms, AI refers to systems capable of performing tasks that traditionally require human intelligence, such as decision-making or data analysis. Legally, this raises questions of liability, due process, and accountability. When an AI system causes harm—such as biased hiring or wrongful surveillance—the law must determine who is responsible: the developer, the user, or the deploying authority. Courts and lawmakers also examine AI through the lens of fundamental rights, especially the right to privacy, equality before law, and freedom of speech. Unregulated AI may lead to arbitrariness, violating the principle of rule of law. Hence, legal frameworks emphasize transparency, fairness, and explainability in AI decisions. While AI can enhance judicial efficiency and access to justice, its use must align with constitutional values. Ultimately, the law acts as a safeguard, ensuring that technological progress does not override human dignity or legal justice.



The proof

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognized as a transformative force in the legal industry. For large law firms, the adoption of AI tools offers the promise of enhanced productivity, new capabilities, and improved client outcomes. However, these benefits come with challenges, particularly regarding the dominant chargeable hour model, which forms the backbone of law firm revenues. The logic is simple: with the dominance of the payable hour business model (estimated to be at least 80 percent of fee arrangements), significantly increased productivity threatens revenues and profits of these firms. This study examines the perspectives of AmLaw100 firms on the integration of AI into their operations, the implications for their business models, and the broader impact on the legal industry.



Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) ignites human imagination, from academia to critically acclaimed entertainment, including Isac Asimov’s novels or films such as “Blade Runner.” This publication and the symposium hosted by the Santa Barbara County Bar Association and The Colleges of Law ground AI discussions in law today. The motivation to address AI issues has been accelerated by the recent surge with notable breakthroughs in generative AI, like Open AI’s ChatGPT.1The surge has caused numerous novel concerns to erupt across legal fields.[1] With the ubiquity of AI across homes and businesses, we must face new imperatives by adding AI to both the practice and the business of law.



Case laws



1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

This landmark case did not directly involve AI, but it laid the foundation for regulating AI in India. The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. Since AI systems rely heavily on data collection, profiling, and automated decision-making, this judgment acts as a constitutional safeguard. It ensures that AI technologies must respect personal data, dignity, and informed consent.



2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar) (2018)

In this case, the Court examined the use of biometric technology and large-scale data processing. While Aadhaar is not AI, the judgment highlighted the risks of algorithmic


surveillance and data misuse. The Court stressed proportionality and purpose limitation, principles that directly apply to AI-driven governance and automated systems.



3. State of Haryana v. State of Punjab (2022)

The Supreme Court used artificial intelligence tools for legal research to assist in adjudication. Though not a rights-based case, it marked a practical shift where courts acknowledged AI as a support system. The judgment clarified that AI can assist judges but cannot replace human reasoning or judicial discretion.



4. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

The Court allowed the use of advanced technology for criminal investigation while emphasizing constitutional safeguards. This case is relevant to AI because it balances technological efficiency with individual rights, reinforcing that AI-based forensic and predictive tools must operate within due process.


Conclusion

The interaction between artificial intelligence and law marks a significant shift in the way justice is understood and delivered. AI offers immense advantages by improving efficiency in legal research, case management, prediction of outcomes, and access to justice for the common people. However, these benefits are accompanied by serious legal and ethical concerns, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, and accountability for automated decisions. The law must evolve to regulate AI without stifling innovation, ensuring that technology operates within constitutional values and human rights. Ultimately, AI should function as an aid to legal professionals, while the core principles of fairness, equity, and human judgment remain central to the justice system.