The Supreme Court on Tuesday proposed setting guidelines for lawyers and courts to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in drafting judgments and filing petitions, with the aim of protecting the integrity of the judicial system.
Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said: “We are not suggesting people not to use AI. But we should have control over the information. Ultimately, the data presented before the court will be used in judgments. We want to fix some liability in this regard.”
These observations come in the wake of the discovery of two orders — one from a trial court in Andhra Pradesh and the other from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai — containing “fake” or “hallucinogenic” citations.
The court said: “This case affects the integrity of procedures in an institution that people trust.” “If a litigant or a lawyer makes a ruling in court, you cannot escape the responsibility of making an unverified ruling. Regarding ethics in AI, the Supreme Court’s e-Committee sets some guidelines.”
The court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to assist in this task. It also sought suggestions from Attorney General R Venkataramani and senior advocate Shyam Divan, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae.
“We want BCI to constitute a committee of independent experts related to this field and submit a report before us,” the bench said.
Attorney General Venkataramani said he was drafting the suggestions, while Divan noted that studying the experiences of other countries could help formulate the guidelines. The matter will be heard later this month.
The court had previously asked Divan to assist the bench on February 27, after the Andhra Pradesh trial court order cited “non-existent” or “fake” judgments. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in January realized that the citations were generated by artificial intelligence and, after registering a word of caution, proceeded to decide the land dispute on its merits.
“We take note of the publication by the lower court of purportedly non-existent, false or artificial intelligence-generated rulings and seek to examine and hold accountable for their consequences as they have a direct impact on the integrity of the judicial process,” the Supreme Court stated in its February 27 order.
“At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such allegedly non-existent and false provisions is not an error in decision making, but rather will be misconduct and will have legal consequences,” the order added.
On Tuesday, the same court faced a similar issue in an appeal against an NCLT order in relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — a recovery mechanism for creditors — involving Essel Infraprojects.
Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, representing suspended company director Pooja Ramesh Singh, told the court that the Mumbai NCLT order relied on “hallucinogenic” Supreme Court judgments.
