Supreme Court Takes Cautious Stand: AI Won’t Shape Judgments

Artificial Intelligence

-Ruchika Pareek

Judges
are
handling
artificial
intelligence
tools
with
great
care
and
do
not
plan
to
let
them
replace
human
judgment,
the
Supreme
Court
said
during
a
hearing.
Chief
Justice
of
India
Surya
Kant
stressed
that
courts
would
not
allow
technology
to
dominate
judicial
decision-making.

The
remarks
came
while
a
division
bench
of
Chief
Justice
Surya
Kant
and
Justice
Joymalya
Bagchi
heard
a
petition.
The
plea
had
sought
limits
on
what
it
described
as
unregulated
use
of
artificial
intelligence
and
machine
learning
in
different
parts
of
the
judicial
system.

Artificial
intelligence
in
judicial
system:
concerns
raised
in
plea

The
petitioner’s
counsel
argued
that
some
courts
had
issued
orders
that
relied
on
case
law
which
did
not
exist.
The
counsel
suggested
this
resulted
from
unchecked
dependence
on
artificial
intelligence
tools
and
requested
formal
safeguards
and
directions
from
the
Supreme
Court.

Responding
to
these
submissions,
Chief
Justice
Surya
Kant
told
the
lawyer,
“We
use
it
in
a
very
over
conscious
manner.
We
do
not
want
this
to
overpower
our
judicial
decision-making
power.
If
you
have
good
suggestions,
you
can
give
that
on
the
administrative
side,” indicating
any
policy
changes
would
be
considered
institutionally,
not
through
this
petition.

Artificial
intelligence
in
judicial
system:
court
stresses
human
oversight

The
bench
accepted
that
judges
needed
to
remain
alert
to
potential
errors,
including
fake
citations
produced
by
artificial
intelligence
systems.
However,
the
judges
made
clear
they
were
not
persuaded
to
frame
binding
directions
on
how
courts
should
handle
such
technology
at
this
stage.

Chief
Justice
Surya
Kant
said,
“Yes,
they
(judges)
must
be
aware
of
this
and
cross-check
as
well.
Judges
must
also
check
the
same.
This
is
a
part
of
the
judicial
training
academy,
and
it
is
taken
care
of.
With
the
passage
of
time,
the
bar
will
also
learn
and
we
(judges)
will
also.
That
does
not
mean
we
have
to
issue
directions,”
highlighting
that
training
and
experience
would
guide
responsible
use.

After
the
court’s
observations
on
judicial
caution
and
existing
training
measures,
the
petitioner
chose
not
to
press
the
case
further.
The
bench
then
recorded
the
position
and
dismissed
the
plea
as
withdrawn,
leaving
future
policy
on
artificial
intelligence
to
administrative
processes
within
the
judiciary.