Share :
UNDERSTANDING THE TOPIC
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the legal domain has sparked a profound transformation, one that carries both immense potential and intricate challenges. In a thought-provoking address at the Indo-Singapore Judicial Conference, Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, shed light on the multifaceted implications of AI’s intervention in legal practice and judicial decision making.
EMBRACING THE TECHNOLOGICAL TIDE
As technological advancements continue to reshape the landscape of various industries, the legal profession finds itself at a fundamental stage. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud underscored the necessity of embracing these developments, recognizing the onset of “AI” as an integral part of the legal domain. However, he cautioned against the indiscriminate adoption of “high-risk” AI tools, which may involuntarily effects unexplained biases and indirect discrimination within the realm of judicial adjudication.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATION AND PRACTICAL CHALLANGES
The integration of AI in modern processes, including court proceedings, raises complex ethical, legal, and practical considerations that demand a thorough examination. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted how the use of “AI” in court adjudication presents both opportunities and challenges that warrant subtle deliberation.
One notable example of “AI’s” expedition into the courtroom came from Colombia, where a judge, Justice Padilla, engaged in a unique dialogue with the “AI” chatbot “ChatGPT” to clarify questions of law in a case concerning insurance claims for an autistic child. This groundbreaking decision incorporated AI-generated insights into the judicial reasoning process, underscoring the potential for “AI” to augment legal analysis.
Also in Punjab & Haryana High Court the case of Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab relied on “ChatGPT” to gain a broader perspective on bail jurisprudence across the globe. However, it is crucial to clarify that “ChatGPT’s” input was not considered when assessing the merits of the case itself but rather as a means to enhance the court’s understanding of the broader legal landscape.
“AI” IN COURT ADMINISTRATION
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital proceedings and increased reliance on technology within the courts. Drawing parallels from the United Kingdom’s ‘Digital Case System,’ CJI D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted the Indian courts’ utilization of the Case Management System for efficient case management from filing to disposal.
Furthermore, he noted the creative use of “AI” in the administrative wing of the justice delivery mechanism, citing the example of the Supreme Court’s recent live transcription services. The “AI” based ‘Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software translates legal proceedings and judgments into 18 regional languages and Hindi, bridging the gap between the common person and the judiciary.
ADDRESSING CONCERNS OF BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION
While acknowledging the transformative potential of “AI”, Dr. Chandrachud emphasized the need to remain cautious against its potential drawbacks. He recounted an instance from the United States where a lawyer submitted “AI” generated bogus decisions in a legal document, attempting to mislead the court. This incident highlights the risk of “hallucination” situations where “AI” generates false or misleading responses, potentially leading to improper advice and, in extreme cases, miscarriages of justice.
The element of bias is a significant concern when dealing with AI systems. Dr. Chandrachud explained that “AI” systems might deal out unfair treatment unintentionally, leading to indirect discrimination. It was cited in the case of D.H. & Others v. Czech Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, where neutral tests evaluating children’s intellectual capabilities disproportionately sent minority Roma children to special schools due to cultural and linguistic differences.
Indirect discrimination can manifest in two critical stages, during the training phase where incomplete or inaccurate data may lead to biased outcomes, and during data processing, often within opaque “black-box” algorithms that obscure the decision-making process from human developers.
An example of such indirect discrimination can be found in automated hiring systems, where developers may not understand the reasons why the algorithm favors certain individuals over others, raising concerns about accountability and the potential for discriminatory outcomes.
HIGH-RISK “AI” AND PRIVACY CONCERNS
In light of these challenges, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud referred to the European Commission’s proposal to regulate “high-risk AI” in judicial settings due to their “black box nature”. One such high-risk “AI” manifestation is facial recognition technology (“FRT”), which identifies or verifies individuals based on their facial features. While “FRT” has identification capabilities, it may interrupt individuals privacy rights.
The case of Glukhin v. Russia, heard by the European Court of Human Rights exemplifies the potential misuse of “FRT”. In this case, a man was found guilty based on “FRT” identification at a peaceful protest. The court ruled that using “FRT” in such a manner is deeply intrusive and necessitates strict rules to prevent misuse.
CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING: THE PATH FORWARD
To address these challenges and maximize the effective utilization of “AI”, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud stressed the importance of capacity building and training for legal professionals. By investing in education and training programs, professionals can acquire the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the complexities of AI, identify biases, and uphold ethical standards in their use of AI systems. Additionally, capacity-building initiatives can foster a culture of responsible innovation, where stakeholders prioritize the ethical implications of AI development and deployment.
Dr. Chandrachud commended the Council of Europe’s endeavors in bringing forth AI regulations and drafting a Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law, reflecting a commitment to developing global standards for “AI” governance.
ADDRESSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
While acknowledging the transformative potential of “AI”, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud raised concerns about the potential for a social divide and deepening class discrimination in accessing “AI” and its benefits, particularly in the pursuit of justice. Drawing upon the words of the American abolitionist Frederick Douglass, he emphasized the fear that the adoption of “AI” might lead to the emergence of two-tiered systems, where access to quality legal assistance becomes stratified based on socioeconomic status.
However, Dr. Chandrachud urged us to look at the brighter side, citing Harvard Law Professor David Wilkins’ observations on how technology disrupts established power structures, as seen in the music industry’s transformation through online streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. He drew a parallel with the legal industry, suggesting that the use of advanced technology can bring the underprivileged to the forefront, granting them access to justice.
The adoption of hybrid-mode hearings by the Supreme Court of India represents a significant shift in this direction, removing geographical barriers and allowing lawyers from any corner of the country to represent their clients before the highest court without the need for expensive and time-consuming travel to the capital.
COLLABORATION AND INTERNATIONAL COOPRATION
In conclusion, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized that while the advancement of technology is inevitable, the fair use of “AI” can only be achieved through embracing collaboration in the international regulatory regime. By fostering international cooperation, we can establish a framework that promotes the responsible and ethical use of “AI” technologies across borders, paving the way for a future where technology empowers and uplifts every member of society, fostering inclusivity, innovation, and progress.
As we navigate the integration of “AI” into the legal domain, we must remain vigilant in addressing systemic challenges and ensuring that “AI” technologies serve to enhance, rather than undermine, the pursuit of justice for all. Together, we shape a world where the promise of “AI” is realized for the betterment of humanity.
HOW WE CAN HELP
- Research and Development: Our team supports research initiatives aimed at developing ethical and unbiased AI systems tailored for legal applications. Collaborate with academia, technology companies, and legal organizations to explore the challenges and potential solutions related to AI in the legal domain. Encourage interdisciplinary research combining expertise from fields such as law, computer science, ethics, and social sciences.
- Capacity Building: Our experts support initiatives aimed at building the capacity of legal professionals to understand and effectively utilize AI tools in their practice. Develop training programs and educational materials to equip legal professionals with the necessary skills and knowledge to identify and mitigate potential biases in AI systems.
- Policy and Regulation: Our team Contributess to the development of policies and regulations governing the use of AI in the legal system. Participate in public consultations and provide input to ensure that AI regulations strike a balance between innovation and safeguarding fundamental rights.
