The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a
PIL seeking to curb the unregulated use of artificial intelligence and machine
learning in the judicial system.
The top court said it was aware of the ill effects
of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) tools in the
judiciary, but these issues can be appropriately addressed by it on the
administrative side rather than through judicial directions.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and
Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard senior advocate Anupam Lal Das, appearing for
petitioner Kartikeya Rawal, who had sought safeguards against the risks posed
by AI-generated content and its alleged misuse in judicial processes.
The senior lawyer said the AI tools create
non-existent judicial precedents or judgements and they finally become part of
judicial pronouncements.
While acknowledging the concerns, the CJI said this
a lesson for the Bar and the judges both.
It casts a duty on the lawyers and the judges to
verify the AI generated case laws and this can be dealt with in judicial
academies and by the bar bodies by training judicial officers and lawyers.
We use it in a very over-conscious manner and we do
not want this to overpower our judicial decision-making, the CJI said.
The CJI said although AI may assist with judicial
tasks, it cannot replace or influence judicial reasoning.
Das submitted that lower courts had begun citing
non-existent Supreme Court precedents.
He argued that this justified the need for
regulatory directions from the top court.
But the CJI said the judiciary was aware of such
risks and that they were being addressed through judicial training.
Judges must cross-check. This is part of the
judicial academy curriculum and is taken care of. With passage of time, the Bar
will also learn, and we will also learn, he said, adding the court saw no need
for judicial intervention.
Das pointed to initiatives such as a structured
mechanism in the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court's own white paper on
AI.
The Chief Justice reiterated that the concerns were
valid but not judicially actionable and invited the petitioner to submit
recommendations to the Supreme Court on the administrative side.
Someone with sincere intentions is most welcome to
give us suggestions. You can mail them to us, CJI Kant said.
Sensing the mood of the bench, Das sought permission
to withdraw the petition which was allowed.