SC rejects PIL on regulation of AI use in judiciary

“We are using this system in a very hyper-conscious manner and we do not want this to overwhelm judicial decision-making,” the bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant of India said.

While Senior Advocate Anupam Lal Das, representing the appellant Kartikeya Rawal, sought safeguards against the risks posed by AI-generated content and its alleged misuse in judicial proceedings, the bench, also joined by Justice Joymarya Bagki, said these issues can be properly addressed by the executive rather than by judicial direction.

Since the court was not willing to entertain the petition, Das chose to withdraw the petition.

The court acknowledged the concerns he raised about AI tools creating precedents and judgments where none existed, which ultimately became part of judicial decisions, and said this was a lesson for both lawyers and courts.

Lawyers and judges are required to verify precedents generated by AI, and this could be addressed by judicial academies and bar associations training judicial officers and lawyers, the court said.

The court noted that AI has the potential to assist in judicial operations and emphasized that AI cannot replace or influence judicial reasoning.

Arguing that lower courts have started citing “non-existent Supreme Court precedents”, Das submitted that regulatory directions from the Supreme Court are needed.

However, the CJI said the judiciary is aware of such risks and judges are being addressed through judicial training. “Judges have to cross-check. This is part of the curriculum of the Judicial Academy and is taken care of. Over time, lawyers will learn and we will learn too,” the CJI said, rejecting judicial intervention.

The appellant requested that the administration submit a recommendation to the Supreme Court.

“We welcome people with sincere intentions to give us suggestions. Please email us,” the CJI said.