Article may be outdated

This article is 50 days old. Some details may have changed since publication.

The Hindu·4 min read·medium

​Manufacturing justice: On the top court, AI use observations

​Manufacturing justice: On the top court, AI use observations
AI Summary

The Supreme Court of India has issued strict warnings against the use of AI-generated fictitious legal citations in judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that while AI can assist with efficiency, it cannot replace human reasoning and that relying on AI hallucinations constitutes judicial misconduct.

Why it matters

This highlights the growing tension between adopting new technology in legal systems and the risks of misinformation, setting a precedent for judicial accountability in the age of AI.

Dive DeeperCreate a free account to unlock

But for its serious implications, a judge relying on Artificial Intelligence (AI) hallucinations to arrive at a judicial determination would have been comical. Given the serious miscarriage of justice that such hallucinations can lead to, if used in the judicial processes, the Supreme Court of India has likened it to methyl isocyanate , the poisonous gas that led to the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984 — “invisible, insidious, and catastrophic by the time anyone notices”. The Court made these observations while setting aside the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in an insolvency case after finding that the NCLT had relied on fictitious AI-generated legal citations, a lapse overlooked by the appellate tribunal. This is the latest in a series of interventions by the Court this year, cautioning against the use of AI-generated fictitious judicial precedents in court proceedings. Through its rulings and oral observations, the Court has consistently adopted a strict and cautionary approach to the deployment of AI in the justice delivery system. On February 27, the same Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe took cognisance of a trial court relying on AI-generated fictitious case laws and underlined that it was not merely “an error in decision-making” but amounted to judicial “misconduct”.

Continue reading on Headlinne

Create a free account to read the full article.

Read full article →
technologypoliticseducation
Political Bias
Center
LeftLean LCenterLean RRight
Confidence: 90%

The article reports on judicial rulings and institutional warnings without taking a political stance, focusing on the legal implications of technology.

Get smarter about the news

Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in