-Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

TEAM CODE -TOCL/2MC/TC- 03

Before The Hon’ble supreme court of INDIA

Criminal Appeal. NO………./2023

(Being allowed by the orders passed in Special Leave Petition under Article
136 of the Constitution of India)

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
HARSH KULKARNI……………………………………………Appellant

Versus

STATE OF KARNAD…………………………………………Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

2nd Oxford College of Law National Moot Court Competition

1
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations
Index of Authorities
Statement of Jurisdiction
Statement of Facts
Statement of Issues
Summary of Arguments
Arguments Advanced
1. Whether Artificial Intelligence is a
person in law capable of giving
opinion?
2. Whether, Report of jail or Bail
Chatbot constitutes an opinion of
expert admissible under the
provisions of Evidence Act, 1872?
3. Whether reliance on the Report of
Chatbot by a judge amount to
abdication of his judicial functions
or amounts to acting contrary to the
constitutional mandate as judge and
4. Whether the High Court erred in
declining to grant bail to Harsh
Kulkarni?
Prayer

2
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another

AI Artificial Intelligence

Cr.PC Code of Criminal Procedure

Cr.P Criminal Petition

Co. Company

Hon’ble Honourable

IT Information Technology

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ltd. Limited

Ors Others

SCC Supreme Court Cases

v. Versus

3
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

1) Salomon vs. Salomon and Co. Ltd [1897] AC 22

2) TATA engineering Co.Ltd vs. state of Bihar and Ors.(1964),
3) Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd and Ors MANU/SC/1641/2009
4) Murari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1979AIR 531, 1980 SCR (2) 249
5) Karnataka v/s. J Jayalalitha MANU/SCOR/05296/2015
6) Anvar P.V v. P.k Basheer and Ors MANU/SC/0834/2014
7) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) MANU/SC/0133/1978
8) Zahira Habibullah Sheik and Ors v. State of Gujrat and Ors MANU/SC/0489/2004
9) UP vs. Naresh and Ors MANU/SC/0228/2011.
10) Balachand vs. state of Madhya Pradesh1977 AIR 366 1977 SCR (2) 52
11) Martin Burn Ltd v. R. N Banerjee MANU/SC/0081/1957

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1) 36th Edition, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code 606-656(Lexis Nexis
2019)
2) 17th Edition, Avtar Singh, Company Law 4-34(EBC 2018)
3) 4th Edition, Volume 1, Sanjiva Row and M L Singhal, Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 (Universal Law Publishing 2016)
4) 27th Edition, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence 239-523(Lexis Nexis 2019)
5) 13th Edition, V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India 540-553(EBC 2017)
6) Volume 2, Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution Of India 1379-
1437(Lexis Nexis 2014)
7) Volume 6, Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution Of India 5757(Lexis
Nexis 2016)

4
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

8) Volume 5, Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution Of India 4673(Lexis

Nexis 2015)
9) Eighth Edition, MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 7, 21,1133 ( Lexis Nexis 2018)
10) Sanjay S Jain, Sathya Narayan, Basic Structure Constitutionalism,1, 30 ( Eastern
Book Company 2011)

STATUTES

1) The Constitution of India, 1950.

2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3) The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4) Companies Act, 2013.
5) Information Technology Act, 2000.

ONLINE RESOURCES

1) Live Law, https://www.livelaw.in/

2) Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/
3) iPleaders by Law Sikho, https://blog.ipleaders.in/
4) Case mine, https://www.casemine.com/
5) Manupatra, https://www.manupatrafast.com/
6) Indian kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/

5
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Criminal appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court in pursuance of the
judgment passed by this Hon’ble Apex Court which has granted leave to file the Appeal by
allowing the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India filed by the
Appellants herein in. This Hon’ble Court has decided to hear this appeal by allowing the
Special Leave in the light of several pertinent Questions of Law being involved and hence
constituting Hon’ble Three Bench Judges for the needful in the interest of Justice, and hence
this Court has Jurisdiction to entertain this Criminal Appeal.

6
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ms. Smitha Murthy, a lecturer in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, met
Mr. Harsh Kulkarni, an upcoming corporate lawyer, at a seminar on the Intellectual
Property Laws.

2. Both of them had studied in the same University in the United States and so, in due course
of time, they became good friends and enjoyed a cordial relationship.

3. Ms. Smitha being well versed in the subject of technology and Mr. Harsha being well
versed in the subject of law contemplated to develop an artificial intelligence app – Chatbot
to address on the legal issues. They worked in conjunction and were successful .

4. Shockingly, on the early morning of 16 th January, 2023 at 6am, Ms. Smitha accompanied
by her lawyer Ms. Pooja Singh filed a complaint under Sec 156 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1908 before the police accusing Harsh of committing sexual offence on her
around 11 pm on 15th January, 2023. She submitted copies of the email which Mr. Harish had
sent her wherein he had expressed emotions for her.

5. The police sent Ms. Smitha for medical examination around 7 am on 16 th January, 2023.
The medical officer reported no visible marks on her body. In spite of that, the police called
Mr. Harsh for questioning at 1 pm on 16th January, 2023.

6. Mr. Harsh obediently appeared before the police at the said time. He disclosed that their
relationship had soured and denied any wrong doing. However, police registered FIR against
Mr. Harsh for offence under S. 375 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 16th January, 2023.

7. Apprehending the arrest, Mr. Harsh immediately moved the Sessions Judge for
anticipatory bail. But, the plea was rejected by the Sessions Judge. He then moved the
application for anticipatory bail before the High Court. He supported this application with a
report generated by the Chatbot – Bail or Jail.

8. The report stated that emails relied upon by Ms. Smitha in her complaint didn’t convey
any inappropriateness on the part of Mr. Harish since emails and messages are typical
among youngsters. It also said that disclosing of emotions is no evidence of sexual assault. It

7
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

further ruled out the possibility of Mr. Harsh fleeing on the ground that he has been a
responsible person and had cooperated in the investigation. The report took note of the fact
that are no visible marks on the body of Ms. Smitha . It concluded that the complaint
constitutes a case under Sec 354A than under Sec 376 of IPC.

9. However, the High Court rejected the bail application with a report generated by the
Chatbot – Bail or Jail.

8
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

Whether, Artificial Intelligence is a person in law capable of giving opinion?

ISSUE II

Whether, Report of Jail or Bail chatbot constitutes an opinion of expert

admissible under the provisions of Evidence Act, 1872

ISSUE III

Whether, reliance on the Report of chatbot by a judge amount to abdication of

his Judicial functions or amounts to acting contrary to the constitutional
mandates as judge.

ISSUE IV

Whether, the High court erred in declining to grant bail to Harsh Kulkarni?

9
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

SUMMARY OF AGRUMENTS

ISSUE I

Whether, Artificial Intelligence is a person in law capable of giving opinion?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the A.I must be considered as a
person in law which is equally capable of giving the opinions as the concept of artificial
intelligence is very vast and more futuristic in nature which is ultimately triggered to solve
the problems relating to the over burdening, time and paper work. And moreover, they have
all the supporting grounds which will make AI to have a legal personality of giving opinion
regarding to the issues.

ISSUE II

Whether, Report of Jail or Bail chatbot constitutes an opinion of expert admissible

under the provisions of Evidence Act, 1872.

It is most respectfully submitted that the report containing the draft judgement generated by
the chatbot namely, Bail or Jail which was used as a supporting report for the second bail
application of Harsh Kulkarni contains the most detailed and reliable information about the
matters and it highlights the act of offences, logical reasoning and it is based on some
expressions of evidences which holds the equal amount of relevancy between the issue and
the report .

Therefore, it is humbly argued that the report of chatbot must be considered as a reliable and
accurate tool in providing legal analysis and it operate based on specialized knowledgeable
algorithms it’s reports must be viewed as an expert opinion.

ISSUE III

Whether reliance on the Report of Chatbot by a judge amount to abdication of his

judicial functions or amounts to acting contrary to the constitutional mandate as judge.

10
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

It is most humbly submitted that the issue is touching on a legal and philosophical debate
about the role of technology in the judicial process the role of judge is to interpret the law
consider evidence and make fair trials .

The constitutional mandates for a judge are to ensure fair and just trials and just trials. And in
certain exceptional scenario’s the court can indeed rely on the AI and other non-physical
entities which possess the eminent amount of relevancy with the issue and these non-physical
entities must be backed with thorough human consideration.

ISSUE IV

Whether, the High Court erred in declining to grant bail to Harsh Kulkarni?

It is most humbly submitted that the high court has mistaken in declining to grant bail to
Harsh Kulkarni as the high court observed that Smitha’s complaint is timely and prima facie
reliable particularly in view of the presumption under section 114A of Indian evidence act
1874. Where the court presumed that she did not consent even though the grounds of sexual
offences were absent .

High court should have considered the report of the chatbot as evidence under expert opinion
due to the complexity the issue has created in such an extent that we can say, the report of
chatbot had the right amount of relevancy to the issue of Harsh Kulkarni with
reasonable outcome.

11
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE

1. Whether, Artificial Intelligence is a person in law capable of giving opinion?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that A.I must be considered as person
in law and also a futuristic element in judiciary which is capable of giving opinion for the
purpose of court and also used to assist in various fields which would ultimately help the
judicial system to understand the complexity of any exceptional cases where the normal
person would have difficulties to get a possible outcome.

1.1 Jurisprudence of legal personality.

A legal person refers to any entity other than a human being that is recognised by the law as
having its own personality that includes objects, property, institution, or group of individuals,
the law grants these entities the status of having rights and responsibilities similar to those of
a natural person. They are treated as distinct units with legal capacity and are capable of
holding rights and fulfilling obligations under the law. They have just been deemed to be
person in the eyes of the law. They are also produced by legal fiction and are referred to as
fictional for these reasons. They go by several names including moral, artificial, fictional, and
justice.

(a) Fictional Jurisprudence: Fictional scenario in legal professions can feature AI acting as
legal advisor, providing analysis of complex legal cases, assisting lawyers in research. AI
systems can quickly shift through vast amounts of legal information, including statutes,
case laws, and legal precedents. This can assist legal professionals in conducting
comprehensive research to support their cases.

AI algorithms can provide legal professionals with insights and recommendations

based on the analysis of past cases and legal outcomes. This can aid lawyers in
making informed decisions and strategizing their approach. AI can automate routine
and repetitive tasks in legal workflows, allowing legal professionals to focus on more

12
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

complex and strategic aspects of their work. This may include drafting standard legal
documents, managing calendars and handling administrative tasks.

Jurist John Salmond defines “A person is any being whom the law regards as capable of
rights and bound by legal duties”.

1.2 Characteristics of AI in the legal landscape.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolutionizes the legal landscape by offering rapid data
processing, efficient document analysis, and predictive capabilities. Al excels in automating
routine tasks like document review, enhancing research speed. Its adaptability to evolving
legal trends ensures practitioner stay current. The 24/7 availability of Al facilitates continuous
legal support. However, while Al streamlines processes, human expertise is crucial for
interpreting complex leg nuances, creative problem-solving, and addressing ethical
considerations. The collaborative integration of Al and human judgment creates a dynamic
synergy, optimizing efficiency and effectiveness in the ever-evolving legal field.

(A) Processing speed

AI exhibits remarkable processing speed in the legal profession, contributing to increased

efficiency and effectiveness. AI systems help in rapid legal research where it can swiftly
process vast amounts of legal information, enabling quick and comprehensive legal research.
This efficiency is particularly valuable when reviewing case laws, statutes and legal
precedents.

AI speed is also used in document reviewing and analysis where it can analyse large volumes
of legal documents, identify relevant information, and extract key insights. This significantly
accelerate due diligence process it also assists in legal database searches such as search
engine infused chatbot’s which will process queries rapidly, delivering relevant legal
information to practitioners quickly. This aids lawyers in finding precedents, relevant cases,
and legal commentary efficiently.

13
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

(B) Learning and Adapting

AI learning and adaptive power in the legal field is primarily facilitated by machine learning
algorithms which are used in training on legal data where AI systems, particularly those
based on machine learning, are trained on vast datasets of legal information. This training
involves exposing the system to diverse range of legal cases, documents, and precedents to
learn patterns and associations. Machine learning algorithms in AI excel at recognising
patterns within legal data they identify corelations, trends, and relationships that are
challenging for human practitioners to learn from large volumes of information.

AI systems can learn continuously . As they encounter new legal cases and are exposed to
updated database, they adapt and refine their understanding. This ongoing learning process
allows AI to stay current with changes in laws, regulations, and legal precedents.

(C) Legal research and Analysis

AI has significantly impacted legal research and analysis, transforming the way legal
professionals’ access, analyse, and interpret vast amounts of legal information. AI powered
tools can quickly review and analyse large volumes of legal documents, contracts, and case
law. This accelerates the document review process, saving time and reducing the risks. AI
automates routine legal research tasks by scanning legal databases, court records, and other
sources to identify relevant precedent, statutes. AI powered search engines utilise semantic
search techniques, allows for more accurate and context-aware retrieval of legal information.
This improves the precision of search results compared to traditional keyword-based
searches.

AI tools can analyse legal citations and references, helping legal professionals trace the
evolution of legal principles, track the influence of specific cases, and understand the
interconnection of legal concepts.

14
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

(D) Client Interactions

AI plays a role in enhancing client interactions in the legal field, offering various capabilities
to streamline communication, provide information, and improve overall client engagement.
AI powered chatbots or virtual assistants are designed to interact with clients, answering
common queries, providing information about legal processes, and guiding clients through
initial consultations. It enhances accessibility, provides instant response, and handels routine
client inquiries efficiently.AI can analyse client communications, identify concerns, and
address issues promptly where it enhances client relationships management, allows for
proactive problem solving, and helps maintain positive client experience.

 Legal Personality for a Company.

A company is a legal entity, it is a distinct and separate legal person from its owners or
shareholders. This legal status allows a company to enter into contracts, own property, sue or
be sued, and engage in various business activities just like an individual.

A company can take different legal forms, such as a corporation, a limited liability company
(LLC), a partnership, or a sale proprietorship, each with its own specific legal characteristics.
The choice of legal form affects factors like liability, taxation, governance and
ownership structure.

In the case of Salomon vs. Salomon and Co. Ltd1 Recognised the principle of a separate
legal entity of a company which states that a company has its own separate existence from its
members. Thus, this concept protects the shareholders from being personally liable for the
company’s wrongs and its obligations. In other words, unlike the partnership, the liability of
its members of the company is limited, which means that if a company commits any wrong,
then the member of the company cannot be held liable for the wrong.

The SC held in the case of TATA engineering Co.Ltd vs. state of Bihar and Ors.(1964), 2that
the corporation is an natural person and has its own existence.

On the matters of these cases, it is humbly argued that the same understanding can be drawn
into the concept of AI being a legal entity to express the opinions. As the companies are
recognised as independent character and are distinctive from its members.

1
Salomon vs. Salomon and Co. Ltd [1897] AC 22
2
TATA engineering Co.Ltd vs. state of Bihar and Ors.(1964),

15
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

A company is called an artificial person by the law. It is called a legal person because it can
enter into a contract, own property and so on.

1.4 Use of AI across the world.

International perspectives on AI in the legal field vary, reflecting diverse regulatory

approaches and ethical considerations. Many countries are actively shaping frameworks to
govern AI's use, emphasizing transparency, fairness, and data protection. The global legal
community is engaged in discussions about balancing efficiency gains with human oversight,
ensuring AI's responsible deployment. Efforts to enhance access to justice through AI are
recognized internationally, promoting innovation while addressing concerns about bias and
privacy. Collaborative initiatives foster cross-border legal tech development, emphasizing the
need for education to empower legal professionals in navigating the evolving landscape of AI
in the international legal domain.

 AI Advisory Group in New Zealand Courts: Te Au Reka

In a progressive move an AI advisory group has been instituted in New Zealand to assist
courts and judges. This assembly, established by chief justice which is a significant initiative
aiming to digitise the court systems fully. This project focuses on understanding and
leveraging the benefits of AI technologies, such as ChatGPT. The AI advisory group draws its
members from various fields associated with the judicial system. Their primary objective is to
draft sets of guidelines that would outline potential security risks, identify areas where AI
could be beneficial.

The group also focused on harnessing AI’s potential responsibility in which there strong
concerns will be towards streamline judicial processes. Making them more efficient and
accessible the AI advisory group aims to strike a balance between the security and
accessibility. The establishment of the AI advisory group is a significant step towards the
digitalisation of the court systems in New Zealand the goal is to create a system that is not
only efficient and effective but also fair, transparent, and accessible to all.

1.5 Artificial Intelligence capacity of giving opinion.

16
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

The non-physical entities are often designed to interact with human in a more natural and
interactive usage. They are equipped with expert algorithms to let them comprehend their
complex surroundings and to give a relatively accurate outcome. AI has been designed to
analyse vast amounts of data at high speeds and detect patterns that may be difficult and
impossible for humans to identify.

They are self-evolved and it mimics the neural network of the human brain. It studies the data
learned from them and figures out its own conclusion on the basis of algorithms and the
information available universally. As it is an AI system, it’s not just following instructions,
it’s figuring out its own instructions it studies conflicts, reasons behind it, it knows the rules
and comes up with creative analysis. Further, it has been proven that it can handle a vast
amount of data beyond anything any human can handle and use it to teach itself how to
predict an outcome.

These characteristics of the AI system demonstrate their ability to think like humans,
sometimes even more. They can commit acts like humans and have consciousness about the
same, and they are capable of giving an opinion over a matter.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that, Legal personality refers to the entity’s capacity to have
legal rights and duties traditionally legal personality has been attributed to natural persons
and in some cases to certain entities like corporations. However, AI is used in various legal
fields as a tool in various ways to understand the depth and seriousness of the issue which are
presented before it.

2. Whether, Report of Jail or Bail Chabot constitutes an opinion of expert

admissible under the provisions of Evidence Act, 1872

It is most humbly submitted that the report containing the draft judgement generated by the
Chabot namely, Bail or jail which was used as a supporting report for the second bail
application of the Appellant contains the most detailed and reliable information about the
matters and it highlights the act of offence, logical reasoning and it is based on some
expressions which can be regarded as evidence that holds equal amount of relevancy between
the issues and the report.

17
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

Whereas the section 45 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with the provisions of opinion of
expert and the consideration of the catboats report is ultimately depends on how the legal
system interprets and recognises it.

2.1 Defining an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act,1872.

An expert witness is one who has devoted time and study to a special branch of learning and
thus is especially skilled on those points on which he is asked to state his opinion. His
evidence on such points is admissible to enable the tribunal to come to a satisfactory
conclusion.

The section 45 of Indian Evidence Act does not refer to any particular attainment, standard of
study or experience, which would qualify a person to give evidence as an expert. Generally, a
witness is considered as an expert if he is skilled in any particular art, trade or profession, and
possessed of peculiar knowledge concerning the same.

An expert operates in a specific field, which is beyond the range of common knowledge. An
expert is however not required to be a professional expert who must have devoted sufficient
time and study of the subject to make his evidence trustworthy.

It can be similarly understood that the report generated by the AI does contains the element of
‘expert’ as they have a very accurate amount of special knowledge of learning and specially
skilled on those concepts where a normal educated person cannot comprehend the type of
knowledge and it can also be argued on the basis that AI has the never fading ability of
memory and larger data collection ability. These elements are almost impossible to be found
even in a person who is a defined as an “expert” under the provisions as expert opinion.

In the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd and Ors 3. The court
emphasised that for expert evidence to be admissible, it must first be deemed necessary. This
necessity arises when the subject matter is beyond the understanding of an ordinary person.

It was held in the case of Murari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 19794, that nothing by the
expert shall be denied on the account that it was not corroborated. If the expert claims
something, the court needs to corroborate it to a certain degree. Taking the opinion in full
3
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd and Ors MANU/SC/1641/2009
4
Murari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1979AIR 531, 1980 SCR(2) 249

18
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

regards is the court’s own decision but a certain amount of it must be corroborated to increase
the understanding of the technical part of the case.

In the case of state of Karnataka v/s. J Jayalalitha5, the Supreme Court emphasised than an
expert witness does not provide factual testimony but offers advisory insights. The court
clarified that the role of an expert is to furnish the court with scientific testing criteria for
evaluating conclusion.

2.2 Legal provisions on expert opinion.

The definition of an expert can be gleaned from section 45 of the Evidence Act, which states
that an ‘expert’ is an individual with special knowledge, skill, or experience in any of the
following areas, foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or finger impression. This knowledge
must have been acquired through practice, observation, or formal studies.

Section 45 to 51 in chapter-2 of the Indian Evidence act deals with the relevancy of expert
opinions.

Whereas section 45-A of the Evidence Act, pertains to the admissibility of the opinions of the
examiner of electronic evidence under the Information Technology Act, 2000 in cases relating
to evidence data transmission and storage. This opinion is treated as that of an expert witness.

Section 46 deals with the relevance of facts that may be considered irrelevant in a case but
became relevant if they aligned or contract with an expert opinion.

Section 65 B of the evidence Act, deals with the admissibility of electronic records. It also
states that any information contained in electronic records, which is printed on a paper,
stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, shall be
deemed to be a document.

When the court has to form an opinion as the person these provisions provide exceptions to
the general rule that evidence should pertain to facts within a witness ‘knowledge’ this
exemption is rooted in the recognition that in cases involving technically complex and
professionally sophisticated matters, the court cannot form a reliable opinion without the
assistance of individuals possession special knowledge and expertise in those areas.

5
Karnataka v/s. J Jayalalitha MANU/SCOR/05296/2015

19
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

Thus, it is on these grounds and provisions it is humbly argued that the report of Bail or Jail
chatbot does indeed constitute an opinion of expert admissible under the provisions of
Evidences Act, due to the presence of section 65 B of the Evidence Act where it deals with
admissibility of electronic records.

Here, the electronic records are those which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded, or copied
in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, it is clearly understood that the any
information which is produced from a computer which is indeed on non-human or non-
physical entity is considered as an electronic record which are used as evidence in courts.

2.3 Electronic Evidence

The definition of evidence as given in the Evidence Act, “all statements which requires
witness to make before it in relation to matters of fact under Inquiry, such statements are
called oral evidence, and all documents produced for the inspection of the court, such
documents are called documentary evidence” this is explained in Section 3 of Evidence Act,
1872. These also include electronic records produced for the inspection of the court, digital
evidence or electronic evidence as well understood is a kind of information which is stored or
transmitted in an electronic form and is a part of a court case that can be used in a trial.

It is also be argued that the evidence which are electronic can be in any form and even in the
forms of AI infused Chatbots which are dynamically being adaptive to the development
society which would solves the complex and comprehensive issues which are absolutely
impossible for a normal person to understood.

In the case of Anvar P.V v. P.k Basheer and Ors 6, This case holds immense importance in the
current technology-driven world as the Supreme Court in this case decided on the
admissibility of electronic evidence in a court of the law taking into association of section
65B of the Evidence Act,

The three-judge Bench of Supreme Court held that an electronic document shall be perceived
as documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence act, 1872.

The purpose of section 65 B of the Evidence Act is to approve electronic forms as secondary
evidence presented before the courts.

6
Anvar P.V v. P.k Basheer and Ors MANU/SC/0834/2014

20
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

2.4 Chatbot’s report co relation with opinion of expert.

The admissibility of reports generated by a chatbot as an opinion of an expert under the

provisions of the Evidence Act does depends on various factors, including the specific
circumstances and the degree of relevancy of the case and the nature of the chatbot. A chatbot
is always a symbol of having qualified skills and entire knowledge about any particular
concepts of the world and chatbot output is considered an expert opinion where it meets the
criteria for being recognised as an expert in the relevant field. And it also has highly
sophisticated and specialised programming algorithms.

Chatbots are as competent as human considering their amount of accuracy which they present
in their outputs or in report. They have specialised and exact knowledge about a concept
where there is also no issue or risk of memory loss due to their ability to store large amount
of data and process it.

AI algorithms are capable to identify patterns and correlations in extensive database and also
allows valuable insights for the outcomes which is been produced. An expert is one who
operates in a field which is beyond the range of common knowledge. But their are some
instance where they fail in operating certain areas. While, AI algorithms provide consistent
and objective analysis, and the factors of 24/7 availability for around the clock availability
and quick responses.

It is similarly understood that the report generated by the Chatbot called ‘Bail or Jail’ does
indeed contains the potential elements of an ‘expert’ as defined under the provisions of
Evidence Act,1872. As they have various additional abilities which a human cannot have.
And also the repot generated by the Chatbot contains the most detailed and reliable
information about the matter and it also highlights vital issues which are based on logical
reasoning and this report must be considered as a reliable source as it holds the equal amount
of relevancy in the current issue.

3.Whether reliance on the Report of Chatbot by a judge amount to abdication of his

judicial functions or amounts to acting contrary to the constitutional mandate as judge.

21
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

It is most humbly submitted that the issue is touching on a legal and philosophical debate
about the role of technology in the judicial process the role of judge is to interpret the law,
consider Evidence, and make reasoned decisions.

The constitutional mandates for a judge are to ensure fair trials based on law and facts and in
certain exceptional scenarios there must be no questioning on the judicial wing relying on the
assistance of any non-physical entities to understand the comprehensive nature of any issues
before the court.

3.1 Judge’s Functions

It is humbly submitted that the judge can be simply understood as a public officer who is
appointed to decide cases in law courts. The sole purpose of the judge is to observe the issues
from both sides and present the most reasonable judgement.

Therefore, a judge has various functions to perform such as to preside over trials and
maintain order by determining the facts and interpretation of the law and to pass the
judgement through application of the law to the facts of the case and decide the outcome and
it is exactly this function which is relevant to the current issue where the judge can indeed
rely on the report of the chatbot as reliance on this report by the judge is nothing but
following one of their functions.

Moreover, the issue which is currently being dealt in the court is comparable and not possible
for a normal person to understand it.

It is argued that if a judge does indeed rely on the report of chatbot it will not compromise
any of his functions or purpose but it will only make the work of a judge easier as they assist
the judge to throw on the matters which are composite and unique in the issues.

It is on these grounds we can argue that the judge can indeed rely on the report of the chatbot
as the Supreme Court has the eminent power to decide on any matter.

3.2 Reports correlation with mandates of a Judge

Judges are the keepers of law and have been given wide-ranging powers which come with an
extensive amount of responsibility. The judiciary is seen as the guardian of law. They
safeguard the laws and keep a check on the government bodies that they are abiding by the
laws or not.

22
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

Therefore, to do all these, judges are given a lot of power. Judges have the power to decide
the cases between different states or between the union and the states. They also have the
power to declare a person as guilty or not guilty of the offence.

The mandates of a judge are to handle legal cases and make judgments in legal disputes. It is
based on this particular point we can argue that the report generated by the chatbot and
relevancy of the judge over the report of a non-physical entity would not amount to acting
contrary to the constitutional mandates as judge, because the report of chatbot must be
considered as equal as any other primary evidence presenting in the court and therefore, the
judge must indeed take assistance of the report to fulfil their judicial function as a judge.

Judges are expert to maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally
observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary
maybe pressured.

3.3 Impact on Mandates of the judge by relying on Chatbot.

A judge is a person who presides over a court of law and decides the outcome of any legal
disputes. A judge has various mandates or duties that he must perform. Interpreting and
application of law is the primary ground on which a judge’s mandate would not be affected
where the judge is required to be responsible for interpreting and applying the law which also
includes wide range of researching where AI can enhance legal research by quickly analysing
vast database helps the judges to follow their judicial mandate which is identifying relevant
precedents, ensuring compliance, identifying clauses and provide comprehensive insights.

Judges must ensure that due process is followed in all stages of a legal proceeding. This
includes ensuring that the rights of all parties are respected, such as the concept of fair trial.
The right to legal representation and even the right to present evidence, whereas in current
issue itself is related to reliance on a non-physical entity as a source which can be presented
as a primary source of evidence in the court to ensure due process is been followed by the
judiciary.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)7 which included the idea of non-arbitrariness,
served as the precedent for what is known as “due process of law.” The Court ruled that
7
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) MANU/SC/0133/1978

23
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

Article 21’s procedure must be free from arbitrariness and inconsistency even though the
expression “procedure established by law” is used instead of “due process of law” as it is in
the American constitution. the procedure itself must be fair, just, and non-arbitrary.

Judges are responsible for making decisions in cases based on the law and the evidence
presented. This may also involve issuing rulings on motions, determining the admissibility of
evidence, and ultimately rendering a final judgment in the case and it is particularly on this
mandate we can argue that judge’s reliance on the report won’t act contrary to their mandates.

 Columbian Judge used ChatGPT in ruling:

Juan Manuel Padilla, a judge who presides over the first circuit court in the Caribbean city of
Cartagena, told that he used ChatGPT as the tool to speed up and solidify his decision in a
case in which he had to determine whether an “autistic child should receive free health
services”.

ChatGPT’s response corresponded with the judge’s final decision: “Yes, this is correct.
According to the regulations in Colombia, minors diagnosed with autism are exempt from
paying fees for their therapies.”

Padilla explained to media that information technology could be used to speed up judicial
decision Padilla told Blu Radio on Tuesday that ChatGPT and other such programs could be
useful to “facilitate the drafting of texts” but “not with the aim of replacing” judges in the
country.

“Today it might be ChatGPT, but in the future other tools could appear that help
judges”- Padilla.

Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that the constitutional mandates for a judge are to
ensure fair and just trials and just trials. And in certain exceptional scenario’s the court can
indeed rely on the AI and other non-physical entities which possess the eminent amount of
relevancy with the issue and these non-physical entities must be backed with thorough
human consideration.

4. Whether, the High Court erred in declining to grant bail to Harsh Kulkarni?

It is most humbly submitted that the high court has mistaken in declining to grant bail to
Harsh Kulkarni, As the high court observed that Smitha’s complaint has presumed under

24
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

Section 114A of Evidence Act. Where the court presumed that she did not consent even
though the grounds of sexual offences were absent.

High court should have considered the report of the chatbot as evidence under expert opinion
due to the complexity of the issue and the report of chatbot had the right amount of relevancy
to the issue with reasonable outcome.

4.1 Concept of Fair Trial

The main aim of the criminal justice system is to ensure fair and impartial judicial function of
each and every accused who has been put behind bars. The judiciary must follow the
adversary system for conducting the trial of an accused through this system. It is the
prosecution who has to prove the guilty of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judiciary has various explanations that why there is a need and importance of the concept
of fair trial in some of the cases.

In the landmark case of Zahira Habibullah Sheik and Ors v. State of Gujrat and Ors 8, it was
held that the SC has defined fair trial as a trial before an impartial judge. A fair prosecutor
and atmosphere of judicial clam. The SC said that a denial of a fair trial is as much injustice
to the accused as it to the victim and the society.

The primary principal of fair trial is the concept of presumption of innocence this is the
leading importance’s the judicial system in various regions across the world especially in
Indian criminal justice system it is under this principle each and every accused is presumed to
be innocent unless proved guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubts.

This principle is based on the underlying fact that there must not be a wrongful conviction of
an innocent person as these will shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system.

In the case of state of UP vs. Naresh and Ors9, that the presumption of innocence is available
to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal Jurisprudence that every person
should be presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty by the competent court of law in
a criminal trial.

8
Zahira Habibullah Sheik and Ors v. State of Gujrat and Ors MANU/SC/0489/2004
9
UP vs. Naresh and Ors MANU/SC/0228/2011

25
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

It is humbly submitted that it is on the grounds of fair trial and its components the high court
did indeed act contrary to the principles of fair trial which is the most fundamental principle
that must be followed by a judge.

4.2 No sufficient Evidence for prima facie against.

It is humbly submitted to the court that Harsh Kulkarni has been convicted for the offences
regarding to sexual offences on Smitha Murthy around 11 pm on 15th January 2023.

Whereas, the high court has observed the Smitha complaint is reliable particularly in view of
presumption available under section 114A of the Evidence Act which talks about presumption
as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape.

The high court’s presumption is touching the offences of 376 which is rape now rape is a type
of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out
against a person without their consent.

The first and foremost element of the provision of rape is a mere penetration of the woman’s
vagina is sufficient to constitute the offences of rape. And in order to determine whether or
not prima facie evidence exist in the present issue, there must be a nexus between the
elements of rape and the quality of the evidence tendered.

In the case of Martin Burn Ltd v. R. N Banerjee10 held that when determining whether a
prima facie case has been established, the relevant consideration is whether it was possible to
arrive at the conclusion in question based on the evidence presented and whether that was the
only conclusion that could be reached based on the evidence.

Whereas in the present scenario we must understood the first and foremost element to
constitute the offence of rape is that there must be an intercourse between a man and a
woman that is, there must be penetration and the very next factor which must be discovered
in the case of rape and will be recognised as prima facie evidence is when there are any

10
Martin Burn Ltd v. R. N Banerjee MANU/SC/0081/1957

26
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

marks of injury that must be considered as the sufficient evidence if there is no solid evidence
on the matter of penetration was constituted or not.

Whereas in present scenario as clearly mentioned the police sent Smitha for medical
examination around 7 am on 16th January, 2023 but the medical officer reported no visible
marks on her body. This shows the clear and sufficient ground where there is absence of
certain essential grounds where the court has taken prima facie without
considering this ground.

4.3 Unsatisfactory grounds for consideration 114A of Evidence Act.

Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape - In a prosecution for

rape under clause (a - n) of sub section (2) of section 376 of the penal code, where sexual
intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of
the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the court shall
presume that she did not consent.

Whereas, the facts and the evidence presented to the high court does not have the direct nexus
or relation in the present issue where there are certain grounds on which the presumption of
114A of high court cannot be implied.

Whereas the section 114A of Evidence Act clearly mentions ‘sexual intercourse’ shall mean
any of the acts mentioned in clause (a - d) of section 375 of the penal code.

The major importance to the fact about sexual intercourse which must be proven with
sufficient evidence. But in the current issue there is indeed no mention about the solid proof
of happening of sexual intercourse and furthered this factor can be argued and emphasised
more on the grounds of medical expert report which said there is no visible marks on the
body of Smith Murthy which has to be considered an unsatisfactory grounds for considering
114A of Evidence Act.

4.4 Understanding the need for anticipatory bail.

It is most humbly submitted that the concept of Anticipatory bail which is a procedural
provision under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure addresses the right to personal
liberty and the presumption of innocence. If a person believes they are likely to be arrested on

27
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

non bailable charges, they can move to the court of session or the HC for anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail is a type of pre arrest bail, and the courts authority to grant anticipatory bail
is discriminatory. The concept of anticipatory bail is entirely related to how the evidence is
been presented and how the presented evidence is classified as “reasonable grounds to
believe” in any case.

However, in the present issue we can present that the Harsh moved application for
anticipatory bail before the HC and his second bail application was supported by the report
which was a draft judgement generated butchers chatbot namely Bail or Jail here, the report
of chatbot can also be a reliable source because of its ability to understand and comprehend
the composite matters which is the current one of Harsh Kulkarni and due to this it can be
even considered as a ‘reliable grounds’ that the HC must have considered and generated him
anticipatory bail.

In the case of Balachand v. state of Madhya Pradesh11 was a landmark anticipatory bail case
it addressed several vital principles related to anticipatory bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
imposed conditions on the granting of anticipatory bail. One of the conditions was the court
must be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was not
guilty of any violation of any provisions of the rules or orders made by the central
government or the state government.

The principle of ‘reasonable grounds’ holds a very important significance while granting the
bail and considering evidences. The very meaning of ‘reasonable grounds ‘is nothing but
something which is a reliable information and here the report of chatbot must be considered
as a reliable source that could be considered as the supporting evidence to understand the
absence of evidence and insufficiency of grounds in the present case to the court.

It is on the grounds that is humbly submitted that the Harsh brought the application for
anticipatory bail before the HC with the second bail application which was supported by the
report a draft judgement generated by the chatbot namely, Bail or Jail.

However, the HC did indeed err in declining to grant bail to Harsh Kulkarni based on these
grounds by rejecting the bail application on merits without even referencing to the report of
the chatbot Bail or jail.

11
Balachand vs. state of Madhya Pradesh1977 AIR 366 1977 SCR (2) 52

28
 -Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge, grant and declare:

1. Artificial Intelligence as a person in law capable of giving opinion.

2. Report of Jail or Bail by Chatbot constitutes an opinion of expert admissible under the
Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Anticipatory Bail for the Appellant.

And/or

Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice.

29
-Memorial on behalf of Appellant-

30