Memorial Petitoner

XIV M.K.
NAMBYAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

MARCH 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

XIV M.K. NAMBYAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
MARCH 2024
TC-MKN22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
XIV M.K. NAMBYAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MARCH 2024
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SALMON
SALMON
WRIT PETITION NUMBER______/2024
FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF SALMON
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
JAN JEEWAN SWASTHA AND OTHERS………………………….

[PETITIONER]
Versus
THE UNION OF SALMON [RESPONDENT]

MARCH 2024
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MARCH 2024
LIST OF CASES

MARCH 2024
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
In accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of this honourable court. The petitioner has approached this honourable court in
an attempt to apprehend the rights violations that will inevitably occur if this act is not
stopped from being implemented. Thus, the petitioner maintains that the present case falls
under the jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution, which shields the citizens from any
violation of their fundamental rights.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Salmon which reads as follows:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.”

MARCH 2024
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF FARMERS TO CULTIVATE THEIR OWN FIELD USING THE
METHOD OF THEIR CHOICE AND THEIR RIGHT TO OBTAIN
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CASE OF THEIR ECONOMIC
DIFFICULTIES?
2. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR

EQUAL STIPEND IRRESPECTIVE OF DIFFERENCE OF MERITS OF THE
PERSONS, VIOLATE RIGHT TO EQUALITY?
3. WHETHER PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE FREEDOM TO LIVE WITH

DIGNITY, FREEDOM OF EMPLOYMENT, AND RIGHT TO BE PAID FOR
WORK?
4. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE THE FREEDOM OF

PROFESSION OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND THE RIGHT TO
PRACTICE THE TRADITIONAL METHOD OF HEALTHCARE?

MARCH 2024
5. WHETHER THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF ADMINISTRATION OF

JUSTICE THROUGH AI TECHNOLOGY IS VIOLATIVE OF BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Salmon's AI Strategy and Achievements

• The government unveiled a five-year plan in 2030 that included an AI policy for all public
domains.
• By 2035, artificial intelligence had completely automated agriculture, with 90% accuracy in
diagnosis and treatment.
• In 2040, 90% diagnosis and treatment accuracy was attained by an AI-powered medical
facility.
Salmon's AI Ecosystem
Salmon has created state-of-the-art AI solutions and technology that have benefited
industries including robotics, autonomous systems, healthcare, automotive, and agriculture.
Along with collaborating with international organizations, colleges, and business leaders, the
nation built top-notch AI research institutes.
AI Uses in Salmon
• AI-driven medical systems transformed therapy, diagnosis, and personalized medicine.

MARCH 2024
• The agriculture sector profited from AI-driven methods for smart farming and crop
optimization.
• Education has become more efficient and accessible thanks to AI-enabled technologies.
• Advanced infrastructure, effective transit, and optimal resource management were
integrated in AI-driven smart cities.
2050's AI Supported Ecosystem Act

• The Act, which was presented by the Union of Salmon in 2050, established a universal
financial assistance program across all industries and introduced AI technology.
• The Act made working for a living optional and abolished the customary agricultural loan
program for low-income farmers. The Act also brought in the provision of AI-assisted
healthcare, which is now offered by all hospitals at a government-fixed discounted charge.
Difficulties
• Advocates, doctors, farmers, and youth contested the AI Act's constitutionality.
• Some claimed that the Act infringed upon their basic rights to employment, respect, and
payment for labor performed.
• Proponents contended that AI lacked the human element needed by the legal system and
that the legal process cannot be mechanical.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Salmon, a technologically advanced country, has been implementing Artificial

Intelligence (AI) policies since 2030. In 2035, agriculture was fully automated with
AI, and in 2040, one medical hospital was run on AI as a pilot project. The success of
the AI experiment led the government to embrace AI fully and introduce a series of
changes. By 2050, Salmon has emerged as a global leader in AI innovation, with
companies and startups developing cutting-edge AI technologies and solutions in
fields like agriculture, automobiles, healthcare, robotics, autonomous systems, and
smart infrastructure.
2. The country has established world-class AI research institutes and collaborated
extensively with international organizations, universities, and industry leaders. AI
applications have transformed several sectors, including healthcare systems, crop
optimization, smart farming, education platforms, smart cities, and resource

MARCH 2024
management. The government has formulated comprehensive policies and regulations

to ensure ethical and responsible AI deployment.
3. In 2050, the Union of Salmon introduced the Artificial Intelligence Supported
Ecosystem Act, 2050, which introduced AI technology and initiated a universal
financial support scheme in all sectors. This Act discontinued human involvement in
agriculture and made it completely AI-based, withdrewing previously existing
financial support for agricultural activities. The Act wiped away traditional
agricultural loan facilities for poor farmers, forcing them to surrender their lands to
the government and receive a monthly stipend in return.
4. The Act also made working for living optional, making work available as a hobby to
unemployed youth. The government would deposit a reasonable stipend every month
in account of such youth in lieu of employment. However, citizens who had keen
interest in being employed had to voluntarily apply to the government in which case
they would be provided with employment.
5. The government also introduced an AI assisted healthcare provision, where testing,
diagnosis, and various medical procedures for patients would be done with the help of
AI. All hospitals in the country had to provide this method of treatment at
concessional rates fixed by the government.
6. One innovative change introduced by the Act was the introduction of one AI judge out
of the 33 judges of the Supreme Court. The Act aimed to introduce more AI judges in
the Supreme Court and subordinate judiciary.
7. Four cases were filed against the AI Act: Basappa, Pratap, Jan Jeewan Swastha,
Anand, and others. Basappa, a farmer who owned fertile agricultural land, challenged
the constitutional validity of the AI Act before the Supreme Court. Pratap, a young
man with an automobile engineering degree, challenged the AI Act's constitutionality,
arguing that it violated his fundamental right to dignity, employment, and the right to
be paid for the work done. Jan Jeewan Swastha, an association of doctors, challenged
the AI Act's violation of the fundamental right to profession under the Constitution
and the potential for multiple complications in litigation procedures.
8. In conclusion, Salmon has made significant strides in AI adoption, but challenges
remain in the form of legal disputes and the need for greater transparency and
accountability in the judiciary.

MARCH 2024
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Issue 1- Whether the provisions of AI act violate the fundamental rights of farmers to
cultivate their own field using the method of their choice and their right to obtain
financial assistance in case of their economic difficulties?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the AI act violates the fundamental
rights of farmers to cultivate their own field using the method of their choice and infringes
their right to obtain financial assistance in case of their economic difficulties as per the
Constitution.
Issue 2- Whether the provisions of AI act, which provides for equal stipend irrespective
of difference of merits of the persons, violate right to equality?

MARCH 2024
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that provisions of AI act, which provides for
equal stipend irrespective of difference of merits of the persons, violate right to equality
under article 14 of the constitution.
Issue 3- Whether provisions of AI act violate freedom to live with dignity, freedom of
employment, and right to be paid for work?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that provisions of AI act violate freedom to
live with dignity, freedom of employment, and right to be paid for work under article 21 and
19(1)(g).
Issue 4- Whether the provisions of AI act violate the freedom of profession of medical
practitioners and the right to practice the traditional method of healthcare?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the provisions of AI act violate the
freedom of profession of medical practitioners and the right to practice the traditional method
of healthcare under the articles of the Constitution.
Issue 5- Whether the judicial function of administration of justice through AI

technology is violative of basic structure of the constitution?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the judicial function of administration of
justice through AI technology is violative of basic structure of the constitution.

MARCH 2024
PLEADINGS
___________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF FARMERS TO CULTIVATE THEIR OWN FIELD
USING THE METHOD OF THEIR CHOICE AND THEIR RIGHT TO OBTAIN
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CASE OF THEIR ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is humbly submitted in this Hon’ble court that the provisions of this act violate the
fundamental rights of farmers to cultivate their own field using the methods of their choice as
and infringes their right to obtain financial assistance in economic difficulties per
fundamental rights provided in the constitution of Salmon and given under the spirit of
Directive Principles of State Policy.
1.1 Violation of Article 300A
No one may be dispossessed of their property without legal justification, according to the
Salmon Constitution. This fundamental right gives people the freedom to own, use, and
dispose of their property without unjustified government intervention. This right is violated
by the AI Act, which compels farmers to give up their land for government-controlled
farming without providing them with sufficient compensation or a valid reason. Article 300A
forbids the state from taking property without justification, and this forced expropriation is in
violation of that clause. The Act also lessens farmer control over land management, which
includes crop choice and harvesting techniques. The petitioner contends that the state's
arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal interference with his property rights through government-
controlled cultivation renders the AI Act's provisions unconstitutional.
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court affirmed the
significance of the right to property as a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.
The court held that any deprivation of property must be authorized by law and accompanied
by adequate compensation, ensuring that individuals' property rights are safeguarded against
arbitrary state action.
1.2 Infringement of Article 21
Article 21 of the Salmon Constitution provides the right to life and personal liberty, which
includes the right to a means of subsistence. According to the petitioner, farming is a
necessary way of life and a way for him to support his family. The petitioner's attorney argues
that the AI Act violates the right to a livelihood by requiring government-controlled
cultivation and limiting farmers' capacity to use traditional farming methods. that by denying
farmers the chance to cultivate their land using conventional techniques, the AI Act disturbs
their means of subsistence. The provisions of the AI Act are illegal because the state's
meddling without enough reason is an unjustified violation of constitutional rights. Also the
government's AI Act implementation without consultation with affected farmers violates their
right to life and freedom of speech and expression.

MARCH 2024
Bachan Singh vs. The State of Punjab, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the
right to livelihood as part of the right to life under Article 21. The court held that any
deprivation of livelihood must be justified by a valid public purpose and must be
accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect affected individuals.
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of public participation and consultation in decision-making
processes affecting individuals' rights and livelihoods.
1.3 Right to Obtain Financial Assistance
The Constitution does not specifically mention the right to financial aid during hard times,
but it is implied by the more general right to life and a means of subsistence, which is
protected by Article 21. The purpose of this clause is to guarantee that people have the
resources necessary to support their families and themselves, especially in times of hardship.
According to the Supreme Court interpretation, this article covers a number of elements of a
dignified existence, such as the right to a means of subsistence and financial security. In
actuality, the right to financial support can take many forms, including welfare programmes,
social security policies, and government initiatives designed to give economically
disadvantaged people and communities access to loans, subsidies, and other types of support.
The Supreme Court has frequently stressed the significance.
In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reiterated the
right to livelihood and emphasized the duty of the state to provide social security and
financial assistance to marginalized and vulnerable sections of society.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the Supreme Court held that the right to
livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. The court emphasized that
the state has a duty to ensure that individuals are not deprived of their means of livelihood
without due process of law.
1.4 Loss of Autonomy
The AI Act's requirement that farmers embrace AI-based agricultural practices presents a
barrier to those with a strong background in traditional farming methods. Farmers who feel
that using traditional farming methods is more sustainable and appropriate for their soil are
losing their autonomy as a result of this transformation. The petitioner's autonomy within his
cultural and social milieu is affected by the Act's disruption of the communal nature of
farming. He is no longer in charge of his land or the decisions made about farming, including
what crops to grow, how to plant, and how to harvest. The Act's provisions undermine the
petitioner's economic independence by compelling him to accept a government stipend in lieu
of customary financial support.
The use of legalistic and technical jargon by tech companies and agribusinesses can mislead
farmers about the legal agreements they are signing when utilising AI. Large agribusinesses
have been able to exert more control over farms as a result, making it illegal for farmers to fix
or tamper with AI gear. Farmers have accepted the algorithmic authority of AI decision-
making and have granted the AI system autonomy and control over their farms, often against
their own beliefs.

MARCH 2024
1.5 Dependency on Technology and Environmental Concerns

A major dependence on external technical systems has resulted from the AI Act's obligation
to implement AI-based agricultural methods. Autonomy and independence are compromised
by this dependency. additionally susceptible to technological errors, which could have a
major influence on the ability to cultivate land, such as hardware problems, software bugs, or
power outages. Farmers may lose their traditional knowledge and competence if AI replaces
conventional farming methods, further severing their ties to their ancestral land. Furthermore,
giving up authority over farming decisions to outside parties results in arbitrary, vulnerable
decisions that are against the interests of the parties involved.
An over-reliance on AI in agriculture could make environmental issues like overuse of
chemicals, depletion of water supplies, and degradation of soil worse. Concerns over the
possible interruption of AI-powered commercial farms have been highlighted by hack alerts,
such as the ransomware attack on NEW Cooperative and the 2021 cyberattack on JBS.
Additionally, AI systems designed to maximise crop yields in the near term may overlook
environmental effects, which could eventually result in misuse of fertilisers and soil
degradation. Also scraps of technical gadgets used for agriculture are hard to dispose and can
lead to major environmental concerns.
Thus, it is humbly submitted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court that considering the
aforementioned argument the petitioners seek judicial intervention to protect their
constitutional rights, restore financial assistance for farmers, prevent arbitrary deprivation of
property, and promote the welfare of farmers in accordance with the principles of justice and
equity

MARCH 2024
ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR

EQUAL STIPEND IRRESPECTIVE OF DIFFERENCE OF MERITS OF THE
PERSONS, VIOLATE RIGHT TO EQUALITY?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the provisions of AI act provides for equal
stipend irrespective of difference of merits of the persons and their right to equality is
violative of article 21 of salmon constitution. The directive principles of state policy and the
fundamental rights explicitly enunciate the commitment to minimise inequalities improve the
facilities and opportunities. The judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court and State High
Courts have significantly contributed in giving a newer and finer prospective of fundamental
right.
The SC decision in State of Kerala v N. M. Thomas emphasized that equality does not mean
treating everyone alike but ensuring equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for
unequal.
2.1 Potential for Unjust Enrichment
If individuals who contribute more to AI projects or demonstrate higher levels of skill and
productivity receive the same stipend as those who contribute less or perform poorly, it could
result in unjust enrichment. High-performing individuals may feel that their efforts are not
adequately recognized or rewarded, while low-performing individuals benefit from the
contributions of others without justification. Equal stipends regardless of merit may lead to a
misallocation of resources, as there is no incentive for individuals to improve their skills or
invest additional effort into their work. This could result in inefficiencies and wasted
resources, with the potential for some individuals to benefit unfairly from the efforts of other.
In competitive environments, equal stipends regardless of merit could undermine fair
competition by removing incentives for individuals to excel and differentiate themselves from
their peers. This could lead to a situation where individuals who would otherwise strive for
excellence are disincentivized from doing so, while others benefit from their lack of effort or
performance. Merit -based compensation often serves as a reward for innovation and creative
contributions. If everyone receives the same stipend regardless of merit, it may discourage
individuals from pursuing innovative ideas or taking risks, leading to a stagnation of progress
and development in the field of artificial intelligence.
In the landmark case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors, the Supreme
Court observed that the temporary employees performing similar duties and functions as
discharged by permanent employees are to be given wages at par with permanent employees
similarly placed. It also stated that this principle must be applied in the cases where the same
work is being performed, irrespective of the class of the employee.
In the case of Budhan Choudhary v. the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the
concept of equality does not require that the law treat all individuals the same, but rather
classification made between individuals must be reasonable. Hence, the classification must be

MARCH 2024
grounded on two rationales, firstly, on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes people of

one group from other groups, secondly, such differentia must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved. Although, the facts of the case itself did not deal with the idea
of ‘equal pay for equal work’, however, the principles laid down have been significantly
relied on by the courts in the cases involving such issues.
2.2 Undermining Fair Competition

In a system where everyone receives the same stipend regardless of their performance or
merit, there is little incentive for individuals to excel or strive for excellence. This lack of
incentive can lead to a decline in productivity, innovation, and overall performance.
a) Diminished Motivation: Individuals who are highly skilled or talented may feel
demotivated if their efforts are not recognized or rewarded appropriately. This can
lead to a decrease in morale and motivation, resulting in a lower quality of work and
reduced productivity.
b) Unfair Advantage for Low Performers: Equal stipends can create a situation where
low-performing individuals benefit at the expense of high-performing individuals.
This can lead to resentment among high-performing individuals who may feel that
their efforts are not being adequately recognized or rewarded.
c) Stagnation of Talent Development: In a system where merit is not rewarded, there is
little incentive for individuals to invest in their skills or pursue professional
development opportunities. This can lead to a stagnation of talent development within
the industry, as individuals may be less motivated to improve their skills or pursue
career advancement opportunities.
d) Loss of Competitive Edge: Fair competition is essential for driving innovation,
productivity, and growth within an industry. Equal stipends can erode the competitive
edge of companies and organizations, as there is less motivation for employees to
innovate, take risks, or push the boundaries of what is possible.
In the case of V. Markendeya v, State of Andhra Pradesh, the facts provided that there was a
difference in pay scale between graduate supervisors having a degree in engineering and non-
graduate supervisors having diploma and license. The Court upheld such difference and
stated that the basis of difference being educational qualifications is reasonable for the
difference in pay scales, thus would not go against Article 14 and 16.
2.3 Violative of article 14
a) Unequal Treatment: The principle of equality entails that individuals should be
treated fairly and without discrimination. However, providing equal stipends
regardless of differences in merit results in unequal treatment. Individuals who
contribute more, possess higher skills, or perform better may feel unfairly treated
when they receive the same compensation as those who contribute less or perform
poorly.
b) Undermining Merit-Based Systems: Equal stipends undermine the merit-based
principles of rewarding individuals based on their skills, efforts, and performance.

MARCH 2024
This undermines the right to equality as it fails to recognize and reward individuals
proportionately based on their merits and contributions.
c) Inequality in Opportunities: Merit-based compensation systems often provide
opportunities for individuals to earn higher rewards through their efforts and
achievements. Equal stipends irrespective of merit deprive high-performing
individuals of the opportunity to earn higher compensation based on their merit, thus
creating inequality in opportunities for advancement and recognition.
d) Violation of Equal Pay for Equal Work: Equal stipends irrespective of merit can
violate the principle of equal pay for equal work. When individuals perform different
levels of work or contribute unequally to a project or task, compensating them equally
disregards their individual efforts and achievements, resulting in unequal treatment.
e) Discouragement of Excellence: Providing equal stipends irrespective of merit may
discourage individuals from striving for excellence or putting in extra effort. This
discouragement can result in a lack of motivation among high performers who feel
their efforts are not adequately recognized or rewarded, thus hindering their right to
equal opportunities for growth and advancement.
In Federation of All India Customs and Central excise Stenographers and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors., it was held:
"There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility justifying
different pay scale. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference.
One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of
value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay
and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bonafide, reasonably
on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such
differentiation will not amount to discrimination"
It was further observed that-
"the same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive,
some requiring more tact, some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment,"
In State of Orissa and Ors. v. Balaram Sahu and Ors., Court observed as under:
"Though "equal pay for equal work" is considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 as much
as "equal pay for unequal work" will also be a negation of that right, equal pay would
depend upon not only the nature or the volume of work, tint also on the qualitative difference
as regards reliability and responsibility as well and though the functions may be the same,
but the responsibilities do make a real and substantial difference.
In light of this compelling arguments we respectfully urge this hon’ble court to

recognize the violation of the rights to equality inherent in the AI acts provision for
equal stipend and to uphold the principles fairness, meritocracy and dignity.

MARCH 2024
ISSUE 3- WHETHER PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE FREEDOM TO LIVE

WITH DIGNITY, FREEDOM OF EMPLOYMENT, AND RIGHT TO BE PAID FOR
WORK?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that there is complete violation of freedom to
live with dignity, freedom of employment and right to be paid for work(art.21)
3.1 Freedom to Live with Dignity
The freedom to live with dignity is a fundamental human right recognized by various legal
systems and international instruments. Provisions within an AI Act that undermine human
dignity, such as by enabling invasive surveillance, discriminatory algorithms, or automated
decision-making systems that disproportionately harm marginalized groups, could violate this
right. For example, if AI systems are used to target individuals based on sensitive personal
characteristics or deny them essential services or opportunities, it could infringe upon their
dignity.
In order to determine the human rights implications of AI decision-making, a basic liberties
appraisal would need to incorporate an evaluation of AI systems compliance with
fundamental rights. Such risk assessments cover the respect for human dignity, freedom of
the individual, respect for democracy, justice and the rule of law, equality, non-discrimination
and solidarity and citizens’ rights. Specifically, despite the fact that regard for human dignity
today is tested by the fast advancement of new innovations, its general significance stays in
one piece, for example each individual has an 'inherent worth', which ought to never be
jeopardized or subdued by others. Infringement of human pride are acts 'incongruent with the
nobility and worth of the human individual'. Such acts are universally denounced in light of
the fact that they are destructive practices, a 'disavowal of poise, conveying 'an adverse
consequence' on respect and moral integrity. In this sense, human respect is safeguarded in
sacred, local and global lawful structures and it can assume a focal part in compelling the
degree of designation to simulated intelligence frameworks, as shown by its purposes in
different cases.
Human dignity is indeed a core value of worldwide common liberties regulation'. There is a
laid out 'centre common freedoms principle[s] of human nobility'. Hence, common liberties
instruments not just similarly 'reaffirm', in that frame of mind of the UN Sanction of the
Assembled Countries, 'confidence … in the poise' 56 of the human individual, yet in addition
recognize human respect as the groundwork of four distinct ideas. Human nobility, in primis,
'is the underpinning of opportunity, equity and harmony on the planet', as announced
interestingly by the Widespread Statement of Common freedoms (UDHR). Besides, all
people have 'uniformity in poise', in accordance with Article 1 of the UDHR, and they reserve
the option to seek after their 'otherworldly improvement' in a state of nobility. Consequently,
'social advancement and improvement' are established on regard for respect. In this way, there
is a general acknowledgment that human poise grounds the ideas and standards of
opportunity, equity and harmony', of 'equity', of 'otherworldly turn of events' and of 'social
advancement and improvement'. In any event, when a worldwide instrument is quiet on this
rule, human poise actually survives from 'focal significance' for individual independence and
as a central goal. It is by and large concurred that regarding human nobility is 'a central and
generally pertinent rule'.

MARCH 2024
Via outline, the Common freedoms Panel has despised contrariness with this rule in different
settings, for example, as to the restriction of torment and abuse, since '[t]he compassionate
treatment and the regard for the pride of all people denied of their freedom is a fundamental
norm of widespread application' 65, or the abuse of logical and specialized progress. The
ECHR has rather alluded to direct contrary with the guideline of human poise in the appraisal
of encroachments, for example, segregation because of orientation, nationality or race.
The operativeness of the standard of human dignity in lawful practice shows that
contemplations of productivity and viability legitimizing resort to simulated intelligence
advancements stay subject to significant legitimate limitations, and that underperformance
might be normatively expected to guarantee the assurance of human pride. Human nobility
assumes that individuals should be treated with deference. Artificial intelligence frameworks
should be planned and set up in a manner that safeguards people, their physical and
psychological well-being yet additionally their social feeling of character. Significantly, at the
EU level, it has been perceived by the Information Security Specialists that human pride
might be sabotaged with regards to information handling in different ways. There is an
immediate association between information insurance and man-made intelligence
frameworks on the grounds that the last option is progressively used to guide or control data
gathering frameworks as well as to handle the information. To start with, human respect can
be jeopardized by consistent and meddlesome checking, like video observation (or other
comparative innovations) as well as information escalated frameworks gathering portability
information. Second, human pride is viewed as hurt when video-reconnaissance or other
checking frameworks are introduced in regions where high security is rather expected, for
example, in changing rooms or latrines, because of the individual shame that it might cause.
Thirdly, the utilization of delicate information can imperil human poise, as it has been
perceived in instances of obtrusive data demands by bosses, of purpose of wearable and Web
of Things (IoT) gadgets to gather touchy information (for example wellbeing information) or
profiling data, and biometric information assortment. At last, human pride can likewise be
impacted by the distribution of individual data which can make trouble impacted people, as
on account of revelation of assessment decisions, like appraisals of representatives or tests'
outcomes, confidential obligation reports, or the utilization of administrations of the alleged
standing economy.
Likewise, there is a gamble of segregation, and a connected effect on human respect,
emerging from the utilization of calculations in various settings. For example, a mechanized
algorithmic-based government backed retirement framework, like the one executed in the
UK, in spite of working on the expense proficiency of the instalment framework, forces
computerized obstructions in the openness of government managed retirement and may in
this way avoid people without (or with low) advanced education. This, thus, can influence
weak individuals' principal basic liberties, for example, work, food and lodging. In addition,
prescient examination, which may likewise be embraced in youngster defending, can raise
issues of security and separation.
Subsequently, these models represent how similarity and consistency with human respect are
seen as benchmarks or principles for the appraisal of the similarity of innovation helped
reconnaissance. Understanding the consistency of man-made intelligence advances with key
rights is consequently straightforwardly significant

MARCH 2024
3.2 Freedom of Employment

Freedom of employment encompasses the right of individuals to choose their occupation and
engage in gainful employment without unjustified interference. Provisions within an AI Act
that restrict or discriminate against certain individuals or groups in employment opportunities
based on characteristics unrelated to job performance, such as race, gender, or disability,
could violate this right. Additionally, if AI technologies are deployed in a manner that results
in widespread job displacement without adequate retraining or support for affected workers, it
could undermine the freedom of employment.
It is humbly submitted in this Hon’ble Court in the view of the above arguments
advances to uphold the fundamental human rights principle and ensure that AI
technologies are deployed in a manner that respects human dignity, promotes equal
opportunities in employment and protects worker’s rights to fair compensation.

MARCH 2024
ISSUE 4- WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE THE FREEDOM OF

PROFESSION OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE
THE TRADITIONAL METHOD OF HEALTHCARE?
The Counsel on behalf of the Appellant humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Salmon that the provisions of AI act are violating the freedom of profession of medical
practitioner and their right to practice the traditional method of healthcare.
As per the Salmon Constitution, the right to practice any profession, trade, or business of
one's choice is enshrined under Article 19(1)(g). This fundamental right guarantees every
individual the freedom to pursue their chosen profession, including medical practitioners who
play a vital role in healthcare delivery across the country.
Medical practitioners, whether trained in modern allopathic medicine or traditional systems
like Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, or Homeopathy, are integral to the healthcare ecosystem in
Salmon. They provide essential services that are crucial for the well-being of individuals and
society as a whole. The freedom to practice medicine is not only a matter of professional
choice but also a fundamental right that ensures access to healthcare services for the general
public.
The freedom of profession for medical practitioners is further regulated by specific laws and
regulations such as the salmon Medical Council Act, 1956 and the relevant State Medical
Councils, which govern the practice and standards of medical professionals in the country.
These laws ensure that medical practitioners adhere to ethical standards, maintain
professional competence, and prioritize patient safety and well-being.
Dr Mukhtiar Chand & Ors V. State of Punjab, The Supreme Court of Salmon, in its
judgment, held that the provisions of the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act,
1963, did indeed violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The Court emphasized that
the right to practice any profession of one's choice is a fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any
profession, trade, or occupation.
The Court also stated that while the state has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine
to ensure public health and safety, such regulations must be reasonable and not arbitrary. In
this case, the requirement for obtaining a license to practice Ayurvedic and Unani medicine
was found to be overly restrictive and disproportionate, as it did not provide clear guidelines
for obtaining the license and imposed harsh penalties for non-compliance.
In this regard let us consider the case of Google Photos. In 2015, Google Photos image
recognition software was found to contain a terribly serious error because of which it was
occasionally labelling the images of black people as gorillas. The system was too complex to
be understood and hence developers could not trace the problem and ultimately had to
remove all monkey related words from the list of the image tags to solve this problem.[15]
This shows that if the use of AI is left unchecked, especially in the healthcare sector, it can
cause severe violations of legal rights of individuals.
4.1 Informed Consent and Autonomy

MARCH 2024
Informed consent is a process of correspondence between a patient and medical services

supplier, which incorporates decision capacity and competency, documenting informed
consent, and ethical disclosure. As per the meaning of moral obligation, patients reserve the
privilege to be educated regarding their analyses, wellbeing status, therapy process,
restorative achievement, test results, costs, health care coverage share or other clinical data,
and any assent ought to be explicit per intention, be unreservedly given, and unambiguous.
Concerns about this issue likewise expanded with the ascent of artificial intelligence in
medical services applications. In view of the independence standard:
 All individuals reserve the option to get data and pose inquiries before procedures and
medicines.
 Patients ought to have the option to know about the treatment interaction, the dangers
of screening and imaging, information catch inconsistencies, programming mistakes,
the protection of information and access control, defending an extensive amount of
the hereditary data got through hereditary testing.
 Patients might deny treatment that the health care provider considers suitable.
 Patients reserve the option to realize who ought to be capable when these automated
clinical gadgets fizzle or mistakes. The response is fundamental for both patient
privileges and the clinical work market.
In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. union of India,[16] the Apex
Court pronounced privacy as a fundamental right enshrined under the Article 21 of the Indian
constitution. As the privacy is a vital facet of one's life, doctors are expected to follow the
standards laid out by the Indian medical Council Act, 2020 (IMC Act). That's what the
Demonstration says "standards of medical ethics, including proficient standards for
safeguarding patient security and classification according to the IMC act will be restricting
and should be upheld and practiced."[17] The IMC Act likewise makes reference to the legal
repercussions of breaking the protection of patients: "Registered Clinical Practitioner would
be expected to completely keep the Indian Medical Committee (Professional Conduct,
Etiquette and Ethics) Guidelines, 2002 and with the important arrangements of the IT Act,
Information assurance and security regulations or any appropriate principles advised
occasionally for safeguarding patient protection and privacy and in regards to the taking care
of and move of such private data in regards to the patient. This will be binding and should
upheld and practiced."[18]
Section 8 of the Human Immunodeficiency Infection and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act,
2017[19] likewise ensures the protection of patients and gives that "no individual shall
disclose or be constrained to unveil the HIV status or some other confidential data of other
individual conferred in certainty or in a relationship of a guardian nature, besides with the
informed assent regarding that other individual or a person of such someone else got in the
way as determined in section 5". Also, there are a few policies [20] related with the insurance
of security of patients, which require the upkeep of privacy of the patients. The justification
for why these approaches will be inadequate in safeguarding the security of patients in the
time of man-made intelligence, is that these arrangements simply manage revelation of data
of patients without help from anyone else, specialists and outsiders; however don't explicitly
manage the issues connected with storage, accessibility and breaches of the medical data.

MARCH 2024
Thus, the security of information and protection of patients has become one of the significant
difficulties that fuse of simulated intelligence in the clinical area poses.[21]
Though the PDP Bill, 2019 has some shortcomings that need to be resolved before it is
enacted, it must be noted that the government had released the framework of Digital
Information Security in Healthcare Act (DISHA)[36] in March 2018, that aims to specifically
to protect the privacy of patients and their medical data. DISHA also follows the nine privacy
principles,[37] namely, choice and consent, collection limitation, purpose limitation, access
and correction, non-disclosure of information, security of data, openness or proportionality as
to the scale, scope and sensitivity of the data collected as well as accountability.[38] We have
to see how far the enactment of this legislation proves to be effective for the protection of the
medical data and solves the challenge of protection of privacy of patients in the age of AI.
4.2 Medical Consultation, Empathy, and Sympathy
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) with all areas of medical services appears to be
troublesome and incomprehensible. Because of extraordinarily human feelings, human and
clinical robots probably won't develop together in a short time frame. Doctors and other care
providers ought to look for counsel from or give conference to their associates, which is
preposterous in autonomous (robotic) systems. Then again, it appears to be impossible that
patients will acknowledge "machine-human" clinical relations rather than "human."
Specialists and medical caretakers are supposed to give therapy in a sympathetic and
empathetic climate, which will essentially influence the mending system of patients. This
won't be accomplished with mechanical doctors and medical caretakers. Patients will lose
sympathy, thoughtfulness, and fitting way of behaving while managing automated doctors
and medical caretakers in light of the fact that these robots don't have human credits like
empathy. This is one of the main negative parts of man-made reasoning in clinical science.
For example:
 In Obstetrics and Gynaecology, any clinical assessment requires a feeling of sympathy
and compassion, which won't be accomplished with mechanical specialists.
 Youngsters for the most part experience dread or tension as they participate in medical
services settings and meet experts. Their social appearances are cooperation,
withdrawal, and hostility that could be wild with the new automated medication
framework.
 The utilization of clinical robots in mental clinics may antagonistically influence
patients who have extreme mental problems.
In short, the quick headway of Man-made reasoning (artificial intelligence) in the clinical and
biomedical fields is viewed as an extraordinary methodology in numerous networks that
might expand experts in the medical services framework. By the by, regardless of the
extraordinary potential and headway of artificial intelligence in the field of clinical and
medical services, this accomplishment has forced new prerequisites in the field of clinical
morals. Therefore, we ought to know that its negative perspectives could offset its
advantages. To conquer this issue, specialists should think about humankind and morals in
such manner.
4.3 Ethical Concerns

MARCH 2024
AI algorithms may lack the empathy, moral reasoning, and ethical decision-making
capabilities that medical practitioners possess. The petitioner could argue that mandating AI
use without considering ethical implications could lead to decisions that conflict with
accepted ethical standards in healthcare.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India, case highlights the fundamental right to life and healthcare
services. Ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI in healthcare, such as ensuring
patient safety, providing quality care, and upholding professional integrity, are essential
components of the right to healthcare.
Common Cause v. Union of India, although not related to AI specifically, this case
emphasized the importance of informed consent, patient autonomy, and ethical standards in
healthcare decision-making. These principles are essential considerations when implementing
AI technology in medical practice.
Medical practitioners are bound by several ethical principles that guide their conduct,
decision-making, and professional practice. These ethical principles serve as fundamental
standards that uphold patient welfare, promote trust in the healthcare system, and ensure the
integrity of medical practice. Some of the key ethical principles for medical practitioners
include:
a) Beneficence: This principle requires medical practitioners to act in the best interest of
their patients, striving to benefit and promote their well-being. Medical decisions and
interventions should prioritize patient welfare and aim to maximize positive outcomes
while minimizing harm.
b) Non-maleficence: The principle of non-maleficence emphasizes the obligation of
medical practitioners to "do no harm." This principle underscores the importance of
avoiding actions or treatments that may cause harm or exacerbate the patient's
condition.
c) Autonomy: Respect for patient autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle that
recognizes the patient's right to make informed decisions about their healthcare.
Medical practitioners should provide patients with relevant information, respect their
choices, and involve them in decision-making processes.
d) Justice: The principle of justice focuses on fairness and equity in the distribution of
healthcare resources, access to care, and treatment decisions. Medical practitioners are
expected to uphold principles of fairness, equality, and advocate for the equitable
provision of healthcare services.
e) Confidentiality: Maintaining patient confidentiality is a cornerstone of medical
ethics. Medical practitioners are obligated to protect the privacy and confidentiality of
patient information, ensuring that sensitive medical details are not disclosed without
the patient's consent.
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha
f) Established Ethical Principle: The court emphasized the ethical principle of patient
autonomy and the right to information, recognizing that patients have the right to
make informed decisions about their healthcare. The judgment underscored the
importance of practitioners being transparent and honest with patients, respecting

MARCH 2024
their autonomy, and providing all necessary information for informed decision-
making.
g) Impact on Medical Practice: This case played a significant role in shaping medical
ethics in Salmon by reinforcing the ethical principle of patient autonomy and the
obligation of medical practitioners to prioritize patient welfare, honesty, and
transparency in their interactions with patients. It highlighted the importance of
upholding ethical standards in medical practice and respecting patient rights.
While this case specifically focused on patient rights and healthcare disclosures, it
exemplifies the broader ethical principles that guide medical practitioners in their profession.
The establishment of ethical principles in this case underscores the ethical obligations of
medical practitioners to uphold patient welfare, autonomy, transparency, and professionalism
in their practice, reflecting the foundational principles of medical ethics.
4.4 Who Bears the Responsibility
Unlike doctors, technologists are not committed by regulation to be responsible for their
activities; instead, ethical principles of practice are applied in this sector. This comparison
sums up the disagreement regarding whether technologists ought to be considered responsible
in the event that AIS is utilized in a medical care setting and straightforwardly influences
patients. On the off chance that a clinician can't represent the result of the AIs they're
utilizing, they will not have the option to suitably legitimize their activities assuming that
they decide to utilize that information. This absence of responsibility raises worries about the
conceivable security outcomes of utilizing unconfirmed or unvalidated AIs in clinical
settings.
In State of Punjab V Jacob Mathew, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the
standard of care expected from medical professionals should be based on a reasonable
standard, considering the circumstances of each case. The Court recognized that medical
professionals often work under challenging conditions and cannot be held to an ideal standard
of care. Instead, they should be judged based on what is reasonable and customary within
their field of expertise.
Hence, it is humbly submitted in this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner seeks
judicial intervention to protect the freedom of profession of medical practitioners,
preserve the right to practice traditional healthcare methods, and ensure the rights and
preferences of patients are respected in accordance with the principles of justice and
equity.

MARCH 2024
ISSUE 5- WHETHER THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF ADMINISTRATION OF

JUSTICE THROUGH AI TECHNOLOGY IS VIOLATIVE OF BASIC STRUCTURE
OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the judicial function of justice through
AI technology is violative of basic structure of the constitution. Justice Hans Raj Khanna
propounded that the Constitution of Salmon has certain basic features that cannot be altered
or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament of Salmon.1 The structure of basic
theory was first accepted by the Supreme Court of Salmon in the landmark judgement of
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvarun and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Anr.
Justice S.M. Sikri states as follows: “The true position is that every provision of the
Constitution can be amended provided in the result the basic foundation and structure of the
Constitution remains the same. The basic structure may be said to consist of the following
features:
1) Supremacy of the Constitution;
(2) Republican and Democratic form of Government.
(3) Secular character of the Constitution;
(4) Separation of powers between the Legislature, the executive and the judiciary;
(5) Federal character of the Constitution.
The above structure is built on the basic foundation, i.e., the dignity and freedom of the
individual. This is of supreme importance. This cannot by any form of amendment be
destroyed.”
5.1 Preserving Judicial Independence
Maintaining judicial independence is essential to maintaining the rule of law and
guaranteeing the unbiased and fair administration of justice. The independence of the
judiciary from other forces, including the legislative or executive arms of government,
political pressures, and public opinion, is known as judicial independence. It guarantees

MARCH 2024
judges the ability to decide cases impartially and without from intervention or fear of
retaliation. In Union of India v. S.P. Gupta, the Supreme Court upheld judicial independence
as a fundamental component of the Constitution in this historic decision. The court held that
the judiciary must be free from external influences and interference to discharge its
constitutional duties effectively.
By centralising decision-making procedures and reducing the role of human judges, the
integration of AI technology into the judicial function may threaten judicial independence and
weaken the judiciary's ability to serve as a check on the powers of the administrative and
legislative branches. The indiscriminate use of AI in judicial decision-making may undermine
the fundamental notion of a judiciary free from outside influence and interference, as
envisioned by the Constitution. This could raise concerns about the erosion of judicial
independence and the separation of powers.
5.2 Human Touch
The special traits and talents of human judges that are unreplaceable by technology or
algorithms are referred to as the "human touch" in judicial decision-making. These consist of
accountability, prudence, empathy, and understanding. Judges who possess empathy are able
to discern the unique situations and feelings of litigants, enabling them to render decisions
that take into account the specifics of each case. Judges with discretion can apply legal
principles to particular circumstances while accounting for subtleties and complexities that
strict rules or algorithms would miss. Last but not least, accountability guarantees that
justices preserve moral principles and transparency in the judicial process.
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of
human judgment in the administration of justice. The court held that judicial decisions must
be based on reasoned analysis and legal principles, rather than mechanical application of laws
or procedures.
In the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, The Supreme Court emphasised the necessity
of judicial discretion and human judgement in interpreting constitutional values and changing
legal principles when ruling on the legitimacy of instant triple talaq. The court's ruling
highlighted the necessity for careful consideration of social realities and complex legal
reasoning—qualities that AI might not be able to sufficiently supply. These societal issues
might be too much for AI to handle.
5.3 Sustaining Judicial Ethics and Accountability
The integrity and legitimacy of the court depend heavily on judicial accountability and ethics.
The idea of judicial accountability holds that justice should be administered with openness,
justice, and respect for moral principles. Judges should be held responsible for their
judgements, actions, and behaviour. It consists of processes for handling complaints or
accusations of judicial misconduct in addition to systems for monitoring, reviewing, and
scrutinising court judgements.
The values of impartiality, honesty, independence, and fairness are all part of judicial ethics,
which calls on judges to respect and support the rule of law, avoid conflicts of interest, act
impartially and with integrity, and preserve the dignity of the judicial office. By guaranteeing

MARCH 2024
that justice is served and constitutional ideals are upheld, these principles protect the
judiciary's independence and impartiality.
Strong supervision, review, and scrutiny procedures for court actions and judgements must be
established in order to maintain judicial responsibility and integrity. It also entails
encouraging openness in legal processes and making certain that judgements are based on
logic, are not biassed, and are not subject to undue influence. It's also critical to put
disciplinary procedures and rules of conduct into place for dealing with cases of judicial
misconduct or ethical transgressions.
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, popularly known as the "Hawala case," the Supreme Court
directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an investigation into allegations
of corruption against high-ranking officials. This decision underscored the importance of
accountability and transparency in governance.
5.4 Upholding the Rule of Law
The rule of law is guaranteed by the Constitution of Salmon, meaning that all actions taken
by the state are controlled by the law and subject to judicial scrutiny. But the use of AI in the
legal system raises questions about accountability, transparency, and the validity of the
decision-making procedures. AI algorithms have the potential to produce arbitrary and
opaque results if they are not adequately controlled and supervised, which would erode public
faith in the judicial system. Following established rules, protocols, and constitutional
principles—such as due process, justice, openness, and accountability—is necessary to
uphold the rule of law in court. The significance of due process and justice, openness and
transparency, impartiality and independence, and access to justice for all people, regardless of
their socioeconomic background or status, are emphasised by pertinent case laws. For the rule
of law to be upheld in court, proper regulation and oversight are essential.
In Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., the need of openness in
arbitration proceedings was underscored by the Supreme Court, which held that reasons for
arbitral rulings had to be provided and shared with the parties. This ruling emphasised the
idea that maintaining the rule of law requires openness.
5.5 Constitutional Checks and Balances
Maintaining the proper balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial
departments of government requires the existence of constitutional checks and balances.
Actions or situations that compromise the independence and separation of powers among
these branches may pose a threat to these balances. Overreach by the executive branch,
legislative domination, judicial activism or overreach, and the unwillingness to uphold court
rulings are a few examples. The rule of law and democratic governance may be jeopardised
by these dangers. Case laws in Salmon demonstrate the ways in which the judiciary has
stepped in to preserve this equilibrium and support the rule of law. By resolving these
concerns and making sure the rule of law is maintained, the danger to the constitutional
checks and balances can be reduced.
In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime
Minister's election to Parliament was invalid due to electoral malpractice. This decision

MARCH 2024
demonstrated the judiciary's role in checking the actions of the executive branch, asserting the
principle that no one, not even the Prime Minister, is above the law.
The Supreme Court underlined the significance of executive cooperation with judicial rulings
in the State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights case.
This is especially true when it comes to defending fundamental freedoms and human rights.
This ruling emphasised the judiciary's responsibility for maintaining accountability and the
checks and balances found in the constitution.
5.6 AI Technologies and Bias: The Damaging Effect on Article 14’s Vision
The thin balance between just exactly what amount of human control ought to be exercised
over AI, while still enabling it to perform to its full capacity, is an imminent inquiry which
becomes more complicated due to elements like the “anchoring effect” which make such
supplementation essentially futile. The anchoring effect refers to people’s bias towards
computer-generated numbers and data – a tendency already proven to be harmful in
navigational contexts. Such difficulty in evaluating algorithmic outputs objectively and
exercising discernment regarding their acceptance or rejection by the judicial officer has been
established in research.[iv] For instance, when confronted with a high recidivism prediction,
the judge may increase the sentence without independently considering the need for such an
increase. Judges, who ought to act as gatekeepers, and forbearers of equality and neutrality,
can themselves fall victim to a favourable bias towards the AI’s output. This output being
biased, advanced unchecked and in some cases, encouraged, owing to technological
anchoring can render judicial protection against bias insufficient. Apart from the prospect of
this inherent bias in the judicial mind due to the “anchoring effect”, the “garbage-in, garbage-
out” principle leads to the quality of decisions rendered more biased and unpalatable. This
principle in machine learning circles determines the quality of results through the quality of
data. Since the AI system ought to be fed pre-existing datasets of case laws and other
judicially relevant information to produce pertinent answers, historical biases,
discriminations, flawed judgements and approaches stand to continue uninhibited, and due to
the ‘black box’ (a phenomenon rendering inner functionings of algorithmic decision-making
opaque), entirely uninspected. Historically disadvantaged groups stand to lose the most from
such an inclusion.
In the Indian context, Article 14 of the Constitution as a genus, read with Articles 15, 16 and
17 as species concerns the mitigation of bias, discrimination and the promotion of equality
and fairness. These articles were incorporated into the Indian Constitution to make society
more egalitarian and individualistic.[ix] The aspect of damaging bias consistently observed in
AI-based systems runs directly contrary to the vision of Indian constitutionalism.[x]With
regards to such bias creeping into the criminal justice system due to the incorporation of AI in
cases such as the aforementioned bail order, certain repercussions on Article 14 come into the
picture.
The Rajasthan High Court in Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan remarked that judicial bias in
criminal cases is a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and goes against the
principles of fairness and equal treatment of an accused enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
[xi]Such an implication is highly concerning in a country like India which is afflicted with
deep-rooted societal prejudices and biases.

MARCH 2024
5.7 The “Black Box” Phenomenon of AI

AI decisions appear to be made in a “black-box” which has serious implications for the rule
of law and justice.[xiii] Black Box AI situations refer to a phenomenon where the true
decision-making process of an AI system is hidden from the user. Such an absence of critical
information about grounds of reasoning for arriving at a legal decision, assuming AI’s
inclusion in the judicial decision-making, suggests concern, not only from the end of the
judge but also for all parties involved.
The Black Box phenomenon strikes at the heart of transparency and due process. The Loomis
judgement legally validated the use of the COMPAS system, whose working is largely
unknown to the litigants of a criminal trial, which utilises an algorithm to determine the
sentence of a convict. One of the arguments made by the defendants in the case was the
aspect of non-transparency and how the COMPAS Predictive AI model did not explain the
breakdown of each variable, relevant weighting and their correlation, which is violative of
procedural due process in criminal trials
From the Indian perspective, as the scope of Article 21 was enlarged in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, these due process rights have been recognised as key cornerstones of Indian criminal and
constitutional jurisprudence.[xvii] While the principle of fair disclosure is unsettled in Indian law, the
Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand emphatically remarked that the expected attitude of
the Public Prosecutor is that of fairness not only to the court, but also to the accused, and it is
important for prosecution to be transparent throughout the trial process, from conviction to
sentencing.”[xviii]
This precedent is viewed as one of the pinnacles of bringing transparency with regard to the basis of
the conviction of an accused.
With regards to the confrontation clause, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the same to be an intrinsic
principle of natural justice under Article 21 in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva
Vaishampayan wherein it was held that:
“The rules of natural justice require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant
evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken
in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses
examined by that party.”[xix]

MARCH 2024
The use of AI therefore can blur some important due process rights of transparency and natural
justice enshrined under Article 21 which are integral for a fair criminal trial.
Thus, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the light of the
aforementioned statement, it is imperative that the Constitution’s basic structure be
uphold amidst the technological advancements that threatens the judiciary’s integrity
and independence.
PRAYER
In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for
petitioners most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble court that it may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that-
1. To declare that the relevant sections of the AI Act, 2050 to be void ab initio and
unconstitutional.
2. To uphold and safeguard the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to

farmers, employed individuals, medical professionals, and other impacted parties.
3. To order an injunction that prohibits the government from enforcing arbitrary policies
that violate citizens' constitutional rights, such as compelling land surrenders, cutting
off financial aid, and requiring the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare.
AND/OR
The Court may also pass any such orders, as it deems fit, in light of justice, equity and
good conscience. All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
And for this act of kindness, your lordships, petitioners shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

MARCH 2024
Respectfully submitted
……………………….
(Counsel for Petitioner)

Memorial Petitoner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Memorial Petitoner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial Petitoner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XIV M.K.

NAMBYAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

XIV M.K. NAMBYAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL

WRIT PETITION NUMBER______/2024

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

JAN JEEWAN SWASTHA AND OTHERS………………………….

THE UNION OF SALMON [RESPONDENT]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL

2. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR

3. WHETHER PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE FREEDOM TO LIVE WITH

4. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE THE FREEDOM OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5. WHETHER THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF ADMINISTRATION OF

Salmon's AI Strategy and Achievements

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2050's AI Supported Ecosystem Act

1. Salmon, a technologically advanced country, has been implementing Artificial

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

management. The government has formulated comprehensive policies and regulations

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Issue 5- Whether the judicial function of administration of justice through AI

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1.5 Dependency on Technology and Environmental Concerns

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

grounded on two rationales, firstly, on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes people of

2.2 Undermining Fair Competition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

In light of this compelling arguments we respectfully urge this hon’ble court to

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 3- WHETHER PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE FREEDOM TO LIVE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3.2 Freedom of Employment

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 4- WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF AI ACT VIOLATE THE FREEDOM OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Informed consent is a process of correspondence between a patient and medical services

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 5- WHETHER THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF ADMINISTRATION OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5.7 The “Black Box” Phenomenon of AI