Supreme Court AI Caution- The Supreme Court on Friday expressed confidence that India’s judges are fully aware of the risks of using artificial intelligence indiscriminately in the justice system and would not allow technology to influence or override judicial decisions.
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while hearing a plea, which sought stricter controls on generative artificial intelligence and machine learning tools in courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies.
“We do not want AI to overpower judicial decision-making”.
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant said that the judges use AI with extreme caution.
“We use it in a very over-conscious manner. We do not want this to overpower our judicial decision-making power,” the CJI observed.
The court noted that although AI tools can assist research, they also pose risks in the form of hallucinations, fabricated case laws and embedded biases. These were the concerns Kartikeya Rawal expressed in the petition and said that this could also lead to fictitious judgments, misleading research material and unregulated outputs that threaten constitutional rights.
Concerns about fake precedents cited in the lower courts
Counsel for the petitioner thus highlighted how some lower courts had inadvertedly cited non-existent Supreme Court judgments, believing them to be genuine on account of faulty AI-assisted research.
To this, the CJI replied:
“Let this be a lesson to the Bar. The judicial officers also have an equal responsibility to verify. This is part of judicial training academies and addressed.
The Bench added that judges and lawyers have to cross-check information generated by AI and ensure its accuracy before relying on the same in court.
Petition withdrawn after court’s assurance
The application thus sought a uniform, transparent policy governing the use of AI in judicial institutions until Parliament frames a comprehensive law. Supreme Court AI Caution, It also warned that opaque deployment of machine learning tools could violate fundamental rights and perpetuate bias if not monitored.
The Bench, however, declined to pass judicial directions and advised the petitioner to raise suggestions on the administrative side, where issues related to training, technology adoption, and courtroom processes are managed.
Following the court’s stance, the petitioner withdrew the plea.
Courts already taking administrative steps on AI
Advocate Subhash Chandran, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that many courts are already taking cognizance of the various risks associated with AI. The Supreme Court recently released a white paper on judicial use of AI, while the Kerala High Court has also issued preliminary guidelines.
The CJI said the judiciary was treading with care and is not allowing AI systems to impact judicial decisions.
“We are aware. But we won’t issue directions on the judicial side. You can give us inputs on the administrative side.”
Why it matters
As generative AI becomes increasingly common, courts worldwide wrestle with both its benefits and dangers. While it can make research faster and access to information more available, its unbridled use creates hallucinated case laws, incorrect citations, and biased recommendations. The remarks of the Supreme Court indicate that India will follow a cautious, human-oriented approach, wherein within the judiciary, technology remains subservient and never becomes a decision-maker.
FOR MORE UPDATES- https://civiclens.in/category/national-news-civiclens-in/
About the Author
