AI IN THE INDIAN JUDICIARY

Recently, on March 27, 2023, the Punjab & Haryana High Court employed an Al chatbot
developed by OpenAl, called ChatGPT, during the proceedings of a bail case (see here). Al's
most significant impact in the Indian judiciary is evident in legal research.
Key points:

Legal research: Al-powered legal research tools can rapidly sift through vast volumes of
legal documents, case laws, and precedents, significantly reducing the time and effort
required for lawyers and judges to gather relevant information. This enhanced access to legal
resources allows for more comprehensive and well-informed arguments and decisions.

Case prediction: Another valuable application of Al is in case prediction. Al algorithms can

analyze historical case data, patterns, and outcomes to predict the likelihood of success in
ongoing cases. Al assists legal practitioners in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of
their arguments, facilitating informed decision-making.

Contract: Al's capabilities extend to contract analysis, where it can efficiently review and
analyze complex contracts, identifying critical terms, potential risks, and inconsistencies.
This technology
streamlines contract review processes, ensuring legal compliance and minimising the chances
of oversight or error.

How will AI violate human rights in india?

Predicting specific instances of AI violating human rights in India or any other country is
challenging due to the complex and evolving nature of technology and society. However,
there are several potential ways AI could impact human rights in India:

1. **Surveillance and Privacy Concerns:** AI-powered surveillance systems could infringe

on individuals' privacy rights if not properly regulated. For example, mass surveillance
programs using facial recognition technology could lead to unauthorized tracking and
monitoring of citizens.

2. **Bias and Discrimination:** If AI algorithms are trained on biased data, they may
perpetuate or even exacerbate existing societal biases and discrimination, particularly against
marginalized communities such as lower-caste individuals, religious minorities, or women.

3. **Employment Displacement:** AI and automation technologies have the potential to

disrupt traditional industries and lead to job displacement, particularly for lower-skilled
workers. This could result in socio-economic inequalities and impact the right to work and
livelihoods.

Is the utility of AI in present scenario violating Article 15?

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race,

caste, sex, or place of birth. While AI technology itself does not inherently violate Article 15,
the manner in which it is developed, deployed, and used can potentially lead to
discriminatory outcomes that may run afoul of Article 15.
Here are some ways in which AI could potentially violate Article 15:

1. **Bias and Discrimination:** If AI algorithms are trained on biased datasets or

programmed with discriminatory criteria, they may perpetuate or even exacerbate existing
societal biases and discrimination. For example, AI-powered decision-making systems in
areas such as hiring, lending, or law enforcement could inadvertently discriminate against
certain groups based on factors like gender, race, or caste.

2. **lSurveillance and Privacy Concerns:** AI-powered surveillance systems, if not properly

regulated, could infringe on individuals' right to privacy, particularly if certain groups are
disproportionately targeted or subjected to intrusive surveillance based on characteristics such
as religion, caste, or political affiliation.

To mitigate the risk of AI violating Article 15 and other fundamental rights, it is essential for
policymakers, developers, and users to prioritize ethical considerations, ensure transparency
and accountability in AI systems, conduct thorough impact assessments to identify and
mitigate potential biases, and promote inclusivity and diversity in AI development and
deployment. Additionally, robust legal and regulatory frameworks are needed to address the
unique challenges posed by AI and uphold constitutional principles such as non-
discrimination and equality before the law

Case laws:-
 . Privacy and Data Protection: In the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017),
commonly referred to as the Aadhaar judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld
the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This ruling
has implications for the collection, storage, and processing of personal data, including
data handled by AI systems.
 The case "In Re: Prajwala vs Union of India Letter Addressed to Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India with regard to Exploitation of Children" (2018) is not directly related
to artificial intelligence (AI). Instead, it pertains to issues of child sexual abuse,
pornography, and the use of technology platforms to facilitate such activities. In this
case, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of a letter addressed to
the Chief Justice of India by an organization called Prajwala, highlighting the rampant
dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online. The Court issued
directives to various stakeholders, including the Government of India, internet service
providers, and social media platforms, to take measures to curb the spread of CSAM
and prevent the exploitation of children through digital platforms. While the case does
not directly involve AI, it underscores the broader challenges of regulating online
content and combating illegal activities facilitated by technology. AI could potentially
be utilized in the context of content moderation and detection of CSAM, but the case
itself primarily focuses on policy interventions, legal frameworks, and enforcement
mechanisms to address the issue of online child sexual exploitation.
 Location of missing persons: The Karnataka High Court discussed the use of Al based
facial recognition software to help Bangalore City Police identify and locate missing
persons since around 400 missing persons were being reported every month in the
limits of Bangalore City alone. (Sri C. Shiva S/O Chikka Chowdappa vs. The State
of Karnataka: 2007(3)KarL.J148)