A Supreme Court judge states that while AI can be a useful tool for managing legal work, it cannot replace the essential human roles of lawyers and judges, including ethical responsibility and disciplined judgment. He warns against the careless use of AI, citing specific instances of false, AI-generated legal citations that undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
The judge advocates for a balanced approach of "principled adaptation," arguing the legal system must not reject new technology nor accept it blindly. He concludes that the future of justice depends not on sophisticated tools, but on sound institutions and the integrity of the people within them, with technology anchored to the law's foundational ideals.
Main Topics: The role and limitations of AI in the legal system, ethical concerns and misuse of AI (specifically false citations), and the need for a balanced, principled approach to adopting technology in law.
Used intelligently, AI may save time and make some aspects of legal work more manageable, but it cannot replace the trained mind of a lawyer, the ethical responsibility of an officer of the court or the disciplined judgment required of a judge, Supreme Court Judge, Justice Vikram Nath said on Saturday.
Addressing a conference, Justice Nath further said technology may help draft a note, but it cannot be permitted to invent the law; at the same time, the misuse of AI cannot lead the judicial system to the opposite extreme of refusing to engage with it altogether.
Expressing concerns over the instances of AI-generated material having been used carelessly, even in the Supreme Court, including reference to citations and authorities that do not exist, Justice Nath said false citations are not merely technical mistakes; they strike at the integrity of legal submissions and the credibility of the adjudicatory process itself.
"But a tool must remain a tool. It cannot replace the trained mind of a lawyer, the ethical responsibility of an officer of the court or the disciplined judgment required of a judge," Justice Nath said.
"Technology may help draft a note, but it cannot be permitted to invent the law. At the same time, the misuse of AI cannot lead us to the opposite extreme of refusing to engage with it altogether. The answer is informed use, ethical discipline and professional standards. We must learn how to use these tools efficiently, carefully and with full awareness of their limitations," he said.
Therefore, the challenges are real as the technology can widen access, but it can also deepen exclusion. Though it can increase transparency, it can also encourage distortion, he said.
The advanced technologies and tools can assist legal work, but they can also create new forms of carelessness. It can help respond to crime and at the same time become the means through which new crimes are committed, the SC judge said.
"That is the paradox of the age we live in, but it is also the responsibility of our institutions to respond to that paradox with wisdom. Our approach, therefore, must be one of principled adaptation. We must not reject technology because it is new. We must not accept it blindly because it is efficient," he said.
The future of the justice system will not be secured merely by digitising procedures. It will be secured by ensuring that technology remains anchored to the foundational ideals of the legal system, the judge said.
The rule of law ultimately depends not on the sophistication of the tools being used, but on the soundness of the institutions and the integrity of those who serve with them, he added.
Another Supreme Court Judge, Satish Chandra Sharma and Telangana High Court Chief Judge, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, also spoke.
Addressing a conference, Justice Nath further said technology may help draft a note, but it cannot be permitted to invent the law; at the same time, the misuse of AI cannot lead the judicial system to the opposite extreme of refusing to engage with it altogether.
Expressing concerns over the instances of AI-generated material having been used carelessly, even in the Supreme Court, including reference to citations and authorities that do not exist, Justice Nath said false citations are not merely technical mistakes; they strike at the integrity of legal submissions and the credibility of the adjudicatory process itself.
"But a tool must remain a tool. It cannot replace the trained mind of a lawyer, the ethical responsibility of an officer of the court or the disciplined judgment required of a judge," Justice Nath said.
"Technology may help draft a note, but it cannot be permitted to invent the law. At the same time, the misuse of AI cannot lead us to the opposite extreme of refusing to engage with it altogether. The answer is informed use, ethical discipline and professional standards. We must learn how to use these tools efficiently, carefully and with full awareness of their limitations," he said.
Therefore, the challenges are real as the technology can widen access, but it can also deepen exclusion. Though it can increase transparency, it can also encourage distortion, he said.
The advanced technologies and tools can assist legal work, but they can also create new forms of carelessness. It can help respond to crime and at the same time become the means through which new crimes are committed, the SC judge said.
"That is the paradox of the age we live in, but it is also the responsibility of our institutions to respond to that paradox with wisdom. Our approach, therefore, must be one of principled adaptation. We must not reject technology because it is new. We must not accept it blindly because it is efficient," he said.
The future of the justice system will not be secured merely by digitising procedures. It will be secured by ensuring that technology remains anchored to the foundational ideals of the legal system, the judge said.
The rule of law ultimately depends not on the sophistication of the tools being used, but on the soundness of the institutions and the integrity of those who serve with them, he added.
Another Supreme Court Judge, Satish Chandra Sharma and Telangana High Court Chief Judge, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, also spoke.
Meridiano
