Author: Ridhima Lohat
College: Noida International University
To the Point;
The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) in the judiciary systems worldwide has been on the rise, and India is not an exception. Indian courts have witnessed the adoption of technology in different capacities, including legal research, translation, transcription, case tracking, and retrieving relevant case law. Although AI can provide a solution to the protracted litigation processes, ease accessibility to justice, and increase productivity in the Indian judiciary, the use of this technology raises certain legal and constitutional issues.
The main question, therefore, is how the AI can be leveraged to support and facilitate the adjudication processes without overriding various judicial and quasi-judicial philosophies, such as natural justice, judicial independence, transparency, equal opportunities, and the right to a fair hearing.
The use of AI is to be considered an adjunct to support and aid the judges in their decision-making processes.
Use of Legal Jargon:
Introducing AI in the judiciary system engages various legal principles, including:
● Judicial independence
● Natural justice
● Algorithmic bias
● Due process
● The right to privacy
● The provisions of the Indian Constitution such as Articles 14 and 21
● Reasoned decisions
● Data privacy
● Human and modelled oversight
The Proof:
India has initiated the adoption of technology in the judiciary systems. For instance, the Supreme Court of India has developed a portal known as SUPACE ( Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency). This portal uses artificial intelligence to assist the judges in performing various functions, such as legal research, tracking cases, and retrieving relevant case law. Another AI initiative that have been adopted include the Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS), which provides the translation of judgments and legal research documents. Additionally, AI can be used to facilitate legal research, case tracking, transcription, translation, extraction of relevant information from case files, and providing access to legal research databases.
However, it is paramount to note that AI results must be authenticated since this technology can generate false information about the existence of specific cases or laws. Therefore, any information retrieved from these AI initiatives must be subjected to the verification process to ensure that the information is not fabricated. Moreover, it is essential to consider the constitutional implications of using this technology, such as Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Abstract:
AI has the potential to make the Indian judiciary system more efficient and productive. The use of this technology can help in accelerating the adjudication processes, reducing the huge case backlog, and making legal information easily accessible to the Indian litigants. Indian courts have been leveraging on advanced technologies, such as translation and transcription tools, legal research, and case management software to perform their duties efficiently. However, some ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of this technology. For instance, the biases incorporated in this technology can override the existing judicial and quasi-judicial philosophies, such as natural justice and judicial independence. Additionally, most AI systems operate as ‘black boxes’, making it difficult to know the mechanisms used to generate specific outputs. The biggest challenge associated with implementing AI in the Indian judiciary systems is ensuring that it serves as an adjunct to support judicial processes without overriding the role of the judges in the natural justice domain.
Case Laws:
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India :
The Supreme Court of India ruled that every individual has a fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This judgement is critical to the use of AI in the Indian judiciary systems since this technology deals with a lot of personal information concerning the litigants’ cases.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India :
This judgement states that any law made by the State or any administrative action by the government must be fair, just, and reasonable and must follow the principles of natural justice. This ruling can be used to evaluate the implications of adopting AI in the judiciary systems.
3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India :
This judgement can be used to determine the legality of adopting AI in the Indian judicial systems. This ruling holds that any restrictions placed on the citizens concerning the enforcement and protection of their fundamental rights must be reasonable and must follow the principles of natural justice.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai : According to this judgement, the Indian courts can adopt modern technology as long as it does not affect the rights of the litigants. This ruling can be used to assess the legal implications of adopting AI in the Indian judicial systems.
5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India :
This ruling states that the freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, is a fundamental and/or basic right. This judgement can be used to determine whether the adoption of AI in the Indian judicial systems violates the rights to privacy and freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Key Legal Challenges:
A. Algorithmic bias:
This term refers to the prejudices programmed in AI systems, which can affect the accuracy of the results generated by these systems.
B. Transparency:
Most AI systems operate as ‘black boxes’. As a result, it is difficult to understand how the results generated by these systems are produced.
C. Right to privacy:
The personal information of the litigants is stored and dealt with by the court systems. Therefore, the use of AI technology in the courts raises the issue of how this data can be protected despite being handled by technology.
D. Accountability:
This refers to the ability to hold the users of AI accountable for the actions performed using this technology. For instance, AI can generate information about the existence of particular laws; however, it is unclear which entity is accountable for providing this information.
E. Judicial independence:
AI must not override the role of judges in delivering justice.
F. AI hallucinations:
This phenomenon occurs when AI systems fabricate information about the existence of particular laws.
The Way Forward:
India needs to develop a comprehensive legal framework to regulate the use of AI in the judicial systems. Some of the recommendations include:
Adopting AI must respect the right to privacy of the litigants and/or persons whose personal information is stored in the systems used to handle legal matters.
Any information generated by the AI systems used in the courts must be subjected to the verification process since these systems can produce false information about the existence of particular laws.
The use of AI in the judiciary systems must adhere to the principles of data protection and cybersecurity laws to prevent the occurrence of cybercrimes in the courts.
The systems used in the courts must have built-in mechanisms that offer transparency in the decision-making process.
There should be clear guidelines regarding the use of AI in the courts to ensure that it supports the judicial processes without overriding the role of the judges in the natural justice systems.
Judges, lawyers, and other stakeholders involved in the judicial processes must be aware of how to utilise this technology in the courts. Additionally, the use of AI must help in protecting the confidentiality of the judicial records.
There is a need to have regular audits of the systems used in the courts to ensure that they do not generate information that may compromise the adjudication processes and the rights of the litigants.
Conclusion:
AI can be an innovative tool that can transform the Indian judiciary systems. This technology has the potential to increase the efficiency of the courts, improve legal research, enable better accessibility to justice, and enhance the productivity of the adjudication processes. However, AI must be used to support the judicial processes. The adjudication processes involve diverse aspects, including moral philosophy and constitutional and social justice, which should not be automated.
FAQ:
Q1. Can AI replace judges in India?
The use of AI must be viewed as a tool to support and facilitate the adjudication processes. Therefore, this technology cannot replace the judges in the Indian judiciary system.
Q2. How can AI help Indian courts?
This technology can be used to facilitate legal research, translation, transcription, document analysis, case tracking, and providing access to legal research databases.
Q3. What is the biggest risk of using AI in courts?
Some of the risks associated with the use of AI in courts include the inability to ensure transparency, the possibility that this technology can generate false information, and the difficulty in determining who among the stakeholders should be held accountable for the actions performed using this technology.
Q4. Does AI raises constitutional issues?
Yes, the use of this technology can override the constitutional rights of the litigants, such as the right to equal opportunities and the right to privacy.
Q5. What is AI hallucination in legal research?
This term refers to the phenomenon where this technology fabricates information about the existence of particular laws.
Q6. Can AI-generated judgments offer legal precedent in India?
The legal information generated by this technology cannot be used as a legal precedent in India since it does not depict the authenticity of the existence of particular laws.
Q7. What is the future of AI in Indian courts?
The future of AI in Indian courts is geared towards making this technology support the adjudication processes, which entails using this technology as a tool to augment judicial decisions.
