Artificial Intelligence in judiciary must not replace human mind and judgment: Justice Gavai

Justice B.R. Gavai. File.
| Photo Credit: Ramakrishna G

Supreme Court judge, Justice B.R. Gavai, has voiced apprehension about efforts to turn Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool to predict court verdicts, questioning if a machine lacking human emotions and moral reasoning can be expected to truly grasp the complexities and nuances of legal disputes.

Also Read:Why are Indian firms racing to build local AI? | Explained

Justice Gavai, who is in line to be the next Chief Justice of India in May, said the integration of AI in judiciary must be done cautiously. It must serve as an aid and not replace the human mind and judgment.

“The essence of justice often involves ethical considerations, empathy, and contextual understanding- elements that remain beyond the reach of algorithms,” Justice Gavai, who was speaking on ‘Leveraging on Technology within the Judiciary’, said while speaking in his address at Nairobi. Justices Gavai and Surya Kant are on a five-day visit at the invitation of the Kenyan Supreme Court.

The judge said reliance on AI for legal research may also result in embarrassing consequences and significant risks as “there have been instances where platforms like ChatGPT have generated fake case citations and fabricated legal facts”.

“While AI can process vast amounts of legal data and provide quick summaries, it lacks the ability to verify sources with human-level discernment. This has led to situations where lawyers and researchers, trusting AI-generated information, have unknowingly cited non-existent cases or misleading legal precedents, resulting in professional embarrassment and potential legal consequences,” Justice Gavai noted.

The judge said while the Indian courts have embraced technology, the judiciary is facing a problem with content creators and YouTubers uploading edited clips of court proceedings to sensationalise them on social media. These video clips lead to misinformation, misinterpretation of judicial discussions and inaccurate reporting. They raise serious questions about intellectual property rights and ownership of judicial recordings.

“The unauthorised use and potential monetisation of such content blur the lines between public access and ethical broadcasting… Courts may need to establish clear guidelines on the usage of live-streamed proceedings. Striking a balance between transparency, public awareness, and the responsible use of court content will be critical in addressing these ethical concerns,” Justice Gavai said.