ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON LEGAL FUNCTIONING

 

AUTHORED BY: ANJU

BA LLB, LLM

(Advocate)

 

 

Abstract

The adoption of technology in law offers several benefits that positively impact the legal profession and the administration of justice. It has replaced traditional approaches with modern methods revolutionizing today’s legal landscape. Some of the benefits of Legal Technology include increased efficiency, improved collaboration, fast process, enhanced access to information, large data storage space, enhanced legal research, cost savings, easy access, increased transparency, data analytics, predictive insights, and improved case management. Technology automates repetitive and time-consuming tasks, such as document management, legal research, and scheduling, allowing legal professionals to work more efficiently. This leads to reduced administrative burdens, improved productivity, and the ability to handle larger caseloads. 

 

Technological advancements in law practice have assisted the legal professionals in many ways. Current law practice cannot be imagined without legal technology. Previously, when the legal search engines and databases were unavailable, it would have taken much more time in legal research for case laws. One would have gone to different libraries for research and finally would have found some relevant information. At present, information is merely a click away. With technological advancement AI, machine learning, natural language processing (NLP) have also entered legal field. Artificial intelligence or AI is the capability of machines to emulate human intelligent behaviour. AI can perform complex tasks by applying human intellectual characteristics. Machine learning is the mechanism through which a machine or a computer can improvise its performance by analysing new information and patterns. Algorithm development is one such example of machine learning. Natural language processing deals with human and machine interaction. If computers and humans have alike language then it would be very convenient for the legal professionals to develop software for assistance. With development of these AI technologies lawyers can have ease of work but there is a fear that with the advent of AI the employment might be affected. Benefits might come with certain disadvantage.

 

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, technology, justice, constitution, law.

 

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is a branch of computer science that focuses on creating machines that can perform tasks that would normally require human intelligence to complete. The field of AI aims to develop software and hardware that can learn, reason, and make decisions like humans, with the goal of creating intelligent machines that can solve problems autonomously. From self-driving cars to intelligent personal assistants like Siri and Alexa, AI is already making significant contributions to our lives.

 

At presently Indian Judicial system is facing a major problem and that is the huge backlog of the pending cases at all levels of Courts in judicial hierarchy, from Taluka Courts to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As of late it has been debated that if the early action is not taken, the Judicial system would collapse and would be practical meaningless, and not only that, but the worse thing would be is that the common men will loose the faith in the judicial system. Timely justice is necessary. In one of its judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

During the recent COVID-19 crisis, Judges, Advocates, Lawyers, and other staff members of the Court were forced to use virtual software to adhere to the ‘New Normal’. Also, the pandemic taught people to find long-lasting and alternative solutions with the help of available resources. Legal professionals used tools such as Microsoft Teams, Google Docs, Legodesk, and others to work together. The Cloud-based platforms and collaboration tools not only allow lawyers to work on documents simultaneously, but also share information in real-time, and communicate more effectively. Legal Tech provides legal professionals with instant access to vast databases of legal information and facilitates faster as well as more accurate legal research. It enables lawyers to find relevant precedents, analyze legal issues, and develop stronger arguments. 

 

By concentrating on the three key steps of getting machine learning (the much more common subgroup of Intelligent systems) to “implement data, model, and application stage—this article presents a paradigm for comprehending the consequences of AI. In brief, I’m interested in the constraints and hazards that come with data-driven judgments in general, and in particular in the Indian context. This study’s scope and methodology are important for three reasons”.[1]

 

Delivering justice in particular instances is one aspect of enforcing the law, but the court also has a shadow duty in presenting norms to society as a whole. “However, courts and judges handle information immediately of the subject material; parties present the information to the courtroom, modifications occur during the procedure, and the conclusion is likewise information. This information processing isn’t all about complicated customisation. Many matters require a basic evaluation without the need for a hearing, as well as some matters are resolved. Default judgments and declarations of inadmissibility are frequently issued. Complex, conflicting matters make up a small percentage of the cases which the judiciary will have to deal with”. It cannot be overstated how important the method is. As a result, the requirement for information technology varies depending on the situation.

 

Supreme Court of India published a report titled “Subordinate Judiciary-Access to Justice 2016” asserts capacity constraints are the main reasons for high level of pendency. The report explains the reasons and state that the mounting pendency of cases in subordinate courts is because the subordinate judiciary has been working under a deficiency of courtrooms, judicial officers and one cogent reason is that modernization and computerization have not reached all courts. The outcome then, is delayed and ineffective justice delivery which is not very useful for any society.

 

The outcome of a vast percentage of routine instances is predictable. In some circumstances, the court judgement is a document generated by a mainly automated process using data provided by the parties. The judgment document specifies an enforcement title. The court usually accepts digital filings wherein the file party submits data digitally so that it does not have to be manually re-entered.[2]

 

The Judicial Courts handles ordinary matters inside the criminal justice process, and only those matters that require a decision are presented before a court. There is indeed a broad array of scenarios here as well, from the simple to the exceedingly complicated. In all complex cases where the judge or panel must render a decision in order to bring a case to a conclusion, information technology is primarily required in the form of cutting-edge systems and make legal sources readily available, as well as a digital court document that can present huge volumes of information in an adequate way. Because artificial intelligence is indeed a sort of information technology, it may be used in a variety of situations.[3]

 

At presently, one field that has been recently caught eye on is newfound field of Artificial Intelligence to cope up with this conundrum.

 

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice S.A. Bobde, recently proposed to bring in the system of artificial intelligence (AI) which would ease and support the administration of justice in India. However, the idea is to provide aid to the justice delivery system and not to ever substitute the judges. This step is being seen as a revolutionary change in the judicial system. The CJI was addressing the Constitution Day function organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on 26th November 2019 and in his speech, he has said.– 

“We propose to introduce, if possible, a system of artificial intelligence. There are many things which we need to look at before we introduce ourselves. We do not want to give the impression that this is ever going to substitute the judges.”

 

According to the CJI, machines cannot replace humans specifically the knowledge and wisdom of judges. The deployment of the AI system will help reduce pendency and expedite judicial adjunction.

 

His Excellency, The President of India Shri Ram Nath Kovind was also present at the event. He launched the Supreme Court mobile application. Justice Bodbe, while talking about the application, asserted that an artificial intelligence fuelled law translation system will facilitate the quality translation and will further help in improving the efficiency of the Indian Judicial System. Reportedly, the app that was released will translate Supreme Court judgments in more than 9 regional languages. We could say that this is the first step in application of AI in Indian Judicial System.

 

Advanced Technologies utilized by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India, High Courts, and various other law firms, for the past few years, are taking certain essential steps to adapt and embrace the technology for completing their chores easily and quickly. In the matter of Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (2018), a nine-judge bench gave significant decisions on concepts of access to public information, Open justice, and transparency in the judicial process. Also, the main question addressed was, “Whether there should be live streaming of court proceedings or not?” The Supreme Court held that “Live-streaming of court proceedings is manifestly in the public interest. It is important to re-emphasize the significance of live-streaming as an extension of the principle of open justice and open courts. However, the process of live-streaming should be subjected to carefully structured guidelines.” 

Earlier on August 26, 2014, the E-committee in discussion with the Supreme Court and High Courts discussed essential rules for live streaming of Court proceedings as well as addressed the concerns of confidentiality and privacy of litigants and witnesses. It was observed that “Courts must also take the aid of technology to enhance the principle of open courts by moving beyond physical accessibility to virtual accessibility.” E-committee submitted that so far in the Legal landscape, ICT (Information and Communication Technology) is incorporated in the Indian judiciary. Also, “a single unified Case Information System (CIS) Software has been developed for catering to the diversified requirements of the country in terms of local procedures, practices, and languages.” Other platforms for service delivery were also mentioned by the E-committee in their report including e-Courts Portal, Mobile App, SMS Push, SMS Pull, Automated eMails, E-Payment, E-Filing, Touch Screen Kiosks, and Service Centre. 

 

The Indian judiciary has been an early adopter of AI. Having laid the foundation for e-courts equipped with basic computing hardware through the eCourts Mission Mode Project (eCourts project), the Indian judiciary in the last two years has taken a quantum leap to fully harness the possibilities that cutting-edge AI technology has to offer. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Sharad Bobde has repeatedly emphasised the need to tap into AI driven technologies to improve institutional efficiency.[4] On 26 November 2019, the national Constitution Day, Justice Bobde launched the beta version of a neural translation tool called SUVAAS, which formally marked the advent of AI within Indian courts.[5] His interest is not alone—Justice L. Nageswara Rao, who heads the Supreme Court’s AI Committee, stated last year that AI will be used for administrative purposes and expediting the process of justice.[6]

 

In theory, AI in a justice system can be directed towards improving administrative efficiency in courts, and aiding in decision making processes for lawyers, judges and litigants. Its actual integration will require an understanding of the role AI is actually playing in different judicial systems and addressing key legal and ethical challenges that arise in this regard.[7] There must also be an engagement strategy with the Indian legal community and other stakeholders to ensure their support to this process of technological transformation of the justice system. The design and deployment require an implementation roadmap to allow for a phasewise execution of proposed tech interventions. These are the themes that are the focus of this strategy paper. It is hoped that this paper will function as a conversation starter for the integration of AI in the Indian justice system and function as a primer for the stakeholders involved, such as judges, judicial officers and litigants.

 

For the former, developing task-specific narrow AI tools should be the first generation of AI innovation. These should potentially ease the general rigour of the registry, and also aid judges in spending lesser time on administrative responsibilities, in lieu of judicial work. Further, these will provide sophisticated automation for banal and time-consuming admin processes.[8]

 

With respect to the latter, the spectrum of possible AI can include tools for intelligent analytics and research, and even computational tools (and predictive justice in the longer run). These tools can provide comprehensive legal briefs on cases, encapsulating pertinent legal research, identifying crucial points of law and facts, and thereby expediting the judicial process. This can effectively supplement human judgment in adjudication. Furthermore, intelligent tools, like legal bots, can be designed to help potential litigants with better informed decision making concerning their legal rights, and easily and cost-effectively access basic legal services.

 

Before venturing into the proposed use cases, it is pertinent to address a vital prerequisite for any prospective AI innovation for the justice system. Current ML and deep-learning techniques are heavily reliant on accessible data.[9] Once such datasets are readily available, AI driven technologies can be realised for augmenting administrative efficiency and the quality of decision-making.

 

In India, the preliminary work in the use of AI has already commenced. SUVAAS was the pioneer of such task-specific algorithms, designed by the Supreme Court’s AI Committee. It relies on natural language processing (an ML process), easing and expediting translation of judicial orders and rulings. Additionally, as was announced last year, the SC AI Committee is also working on a composite new tool named SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency), which will target different processes like data mining, legal research, projecting case progress, etc.[10] There is also an in-house software being piloted in the 17 benches of the Supreme Court to make them paperless.

 

In addition to providing better information, legal robotics can also improve access to legal services. For a common person, accessing these, or even grappling with a potential legal situation can be a daunting conundrum. Intelligent algorithms (or bots) can be useful in furnishing basic legal information to potential litigants and readily connecting them with legal aid services or pro-bono lawyers.[11] Basic legal services like drafting and conveyancing, legal analyses and interactive breakdown on laws, etc., can be some modes for mainstreaming access to such services, without the trouble of locating and paying for expensive lawyers.

 

Pertinently, AI interventions are also being researched and looked into in other jurisdictions, particularly the European Union[12], the UK[13], and the USA[14]. For instance, in an ambitious use of AI, the Estonian Ministry of Justice has designed a ‘robot judge’ to adjudicate small claims’ disputes of less than €7,000 (about $8,000).[15] The pilot was initiated to resolve contract disputes and is aimed at eventually expanding to other claims.

 

In the USA, AI has more prominently been used for designing risk assessment tools. For instance, the Strategic Subject List (S.S.L.) was introduced in Chicago to predict those individuals who are likely to be involved in gun violence.[16] A more controversial tool, COMPAS or Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions has been used to assess recidivism risk and thus, inform parole and sentencing decisions.[17] Some of the challenges regarding the use of COMPAS have been identified in the next chapter.

 

A similar tool called HART (Harm Assessment Risk Tool) has also been used by the UK to forecast which criminals are most likely to reoffend and suggest what kind of supervision a defendant should receive in prison.[18] The tool, which uses random forest forecasting (a ML technique), has been developed to aid decision-making by custody officers to predict whether suspects are at low, moderate or high risk of committing further crimes within a two-year period.[19] It does not decide whether the suspect should be kept in custody but is intended to help police officers pick if a person should be referred to a rehabilitation programme called Checkpoint.[20]

 

In Brazil, an AI tool called VICTOR is being used to conduct preliminary case analysis to reduce the burden on the court.[21] The tool supports the Brazilian Supreme Court by providing analysis of the cases that reach the court using document analysis and natural language processing tools.[22] The goal of this tool is to accurately and quickly track resources that deal with issues of ‘general repercussions’.[23] This concept of general repercussion is intended to ensure that only questions that are truly relevant to the wider society are heard by the court and exclude appeals that reflect only the unsuccessful party’s unwillingness to accept defeat.[24]

 

On May 23, 2023, the Supreme Court of India invited Financial Bids, Technical Bids, and EMD for the Design, Development, and Implementation of AI tools for transcribing Court proceedings and arguments. As per the published notice, the meeting for the same was to be conducted on June 12, 2023, where the main focus of discussion was “Design, Development, and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Solution, Tools for Transcribing Arguments and Court Proceedings at Supreme Court of India.” Recently on July 03, 2023, the Supreme Court reopens after summer vacation with a major digital change in the courtrooms with a futuristic LED video wall, state-of-the-art digital video conferencing for communication and collaboration, and free WiFi facility. Earlier in an event, CJI DY Chandrachud indicated the next step of the Indian Judiciary is the use of AI for translating judgments into different regional languages of India. The idea was applauded by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi terming it as a ‘Laudatory thought’.

 

Constitutional role of judges and separation of powers

There is also some literature examining how an algorithmic or AI driven judiciary may fundamentally alter its constitutional role, especially as an institutional check and balance against executive and legislative overreach.[25] It is a legitimate question whether an algorithmic decision-making tool can accomplish the complex functions that human judges of constitutional courts are tasked to perform.

 

While an AI tool may be capable of authoring judgments, the role of a constitutional judge is more complex, requiring a weighing of law and facts, tempered with reasoned discretion, to balance competing interests. Often, in cases of legislative ultra vires, or executive overreach, the judiciary may have to resort to innovative thinking to balance the scales. This ability comes from the human judge’s experience on the bench over the years, wherein she is continuously engaging with the law. This engagement in turn shapes her ability to pay attention to how the law evolves, and be mindful of potentially far reaching harms in a seemingly innocuous legislation, or executive action.[26]

 

For AI, to possess such complex ability would require a far more sophisticated degree of deep learning, and intelligence at parity or superior to human cognition. This is commonly referred to as General AI96, which at present, has not appeared in any tangible form of existing AI technology. A complete transference of judicial functions over to AI will certainly face the challenge of how this technology will perform the entire spectrum of roles and obligations that are presently required of human judges.

 

Indian Judiciary

Since 2021, the Supreme Court has been using an AI-controlled tool designed to process information and make it available to judges for decisions. It does not participate in the decision-making process. Another tool that is used by the Supreme Court of India is SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) which translates legal papers from English into vernacular languages and vice versa.

 

In the case of Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab[27], the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected a bail petition due to allegations from the prosecution that the petitioner was involved in a brutal fatal assault. The presiding judge requested input from ChatGPT to gain a wider perspective on the granting of bail when cruelty is involved. However, it is important to note that this reference to ChatGPT does not express an opinion on the case's merits, and the trial court will not consider these comments. The reference was solely intended to provide a broader understanding of bail jurisprudence when cruelty is a factor.

 

Currently, there are no specific laws in India with regard to regulating AI. Ministry of Electronics and information Technology (MEITY), is the executive agency for AI-related strategies and had constituted committees to bring in a policy framework for AI.

 

The Niti Ayog has developed a set of seven responsible Ai principles, which include safety & dependability, equality, inclusivity and non-discrimination, privacy and security, transparency, accountability and the protection and reinforcement of positive human values. The Supreme Court and high courts have a constitutional mandate to enforce fundamental rights including the right to privacy.  In India, the primary legislation for data protection is the Information Technology Act and its associated rules. Additionally, the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill has been introduced by MEITY, although it is still awaiting formal enactment. If this bill becomes law, individuals will have the ability to inquire about the data collected from them by both private and government entities, as well as the methods utilized to process and store it.

 

AI IN CIVIL CASES

The use of AI in civil proceedings, however, is particularly challenging in India. India’s legal system is complicated and varied, with a vast variety of laws, courts, and legal procedures. It is important to carefully weigh the potential benefits and challenges of utilizing AI in this situation. Beyond attorneys and judges, the general public may increase its participation with and comprehension of the law by using research and analytics technologies that are widely available. The goal of this participation is to develop more informed, pro-government citizens.[28]

 

By assisting judges with their decision-making, relieving the strain on attorneys, and improving public access to justice, artificial intelligence (AI) technology has the potential to change the legal system. AI can help with case prediction, document appraisal, contract analysis, and legal research. AI may assist in resolving disputes by providing mediation and arbitration services.

 

Confidentiality and data privacy

AI systems generally rely on large amounts of data to learn and make predictions. Such data may include sensitive information, such as personal or financial data. AI algorithms that require this type of data to train effectively may create problems for organizations to comply with data protection laws.

 

Bias in AI systems

Potential bias in AI systems whilst training can reflect in the outcome. The results from AI can simply reflect current social, historical imbalances stemming from race caste, gender and ideology, producing outcomes that do not reflect true merit.

 

Concerns regarding competition

It is possible for AI to operate independently of its coders or programmers through its self-learning capabilities. However, this could potentially result in technological and economic disparities that have yet to be fully examined. Such disparities could lead to the misuse of data and potentially disrupt the framework established by the Competition Act, 2000.

 

Predict legal outcomes

With AI, legal professionals can access vast quantities of information, combs through previous cases to find relevant points of law and make more accurate predictions about how a particular case will resolve. This has allowed legal experts to deliver their services more efficiently and effectively, resulting in better outcomes for clients.

 

Aiding to provide quality justice

Furthermore, AI tools and automation can help reduce the number of human errors within the legal system, making it less prone to mistakes and improving the overall quality of justice delivered.

 

Expedite legal proceedings

With its ability to quickly analyse vast amounts of data and detect patterns, AI could help streamline and expedite legal procedures in India. This could be especially beneficial in a country that faces a backlog of millions of pending cases and where the legal system can be slow and laborious.

 

Unbiased legal system

Additionally, AI can assist in identifying biases and inconsistencies in the legal process, ultimately leading to more fair and just outcomes.

Simple legal communication for non-specialist

AI-powered legal tools now have the potential to streamline workflows and reduce the time needed for legal research and compliance analysis. Meanwhile, natural language processing (NLP) tools using AI can help simplify legal communication, especially for non-specialists.

 

Accurate analysis of legal data

It also has the potential to revolutionize the legal industry in India. By implementing AI in India's legal frameworks, lawyers and judges could streamline their work, conduct automated legal research, and analyse vast amounts of legal data efficiently within short period.

 

Establishing accountability for technology-related errors in the legal field can be a challenging task. The implications of errors made by AI systems shall have huge ramifications affecting the life and liberty of individuals. However, proactive measures can be taken by legislators and industry experts from legal or other fields to set clear lines of responsibility and to ensure accountability when using AI in their practice.

 

Conclusion

It is important to remember that AI is not a replacement for lawyers' work, rather it should complement it. While AI can simplify tedious and time-consuming tasks, it cannot handle strategic decision-making, complex legal analysis and legal counsel.

 

There are two aspects attached to the use of AI technology in due diligence. First, that an individual will be more credible than a machine. Machine is created by humans so in case of error an AI system cannot be held liable. Second important aspect to note is that a human can err in performing tasks but a machine does what it is programmed to do, it can carry out tasks more efficiently so chances of error due exhaustion is very minimal. Ultimately, AI cannot in itself perform tasks in isolation, it is made to assist human not replace them. The client company might have an opinion or a preference regarding the lawyers using or not using AI. Some might prefer AI equipped technology as there is less chance of error and increased efficiency, others on the other hand might go for the regular mechanism that does not include AI. Software failure and lack of proper training of AI can also lead to missing of vital information and it should be noted that a software being made liable for an error is highly questionable. Further, the sensitive confidential information might be exposed due to the threat of cyber attack and viruses. Furthermore, the question of attorney client privilege might be questioned in certain jurisdiction. Firms opting for AI technology must not be willing to invest only on AI technology but also on appropriate human resource to train such software or else it might backfire the purpose for which it was established. AI can certainly be used as a tool of assistance but cannot replace lawyers.

 

References:

1. Jain, P., 2018. Artificial Intelligence for sustainable and effective justice delivery in India. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(06), pp.63-70.
2. Kalyanakrishnan, Shivaram, Rahul Alex Panicker, Sarayu Natarajan, and Shreya Rao. “Opportunities and challenges for artificial intelligence in India.” In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 164-170. 2018.
3. Nandi, Anulekha. “Artificial intelligence in education in India: questioning justice and inclusion.” (2019): 140-144.
4. ‘AI can improve judicial system’s efficiency — full text of CJI Bobde’s Constitution Day speech’ (ThePrint, 27 November 2019) accessed on 5 November 2023
5. SUVAAS or the Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software, is a neural translation tool which has been trained using machine-learning processes. It has the capability of translating English judgments and daily orders into nine vernacular scripts, and vice-versa. See the Supreme Court of India’s press release for information on SUVAAS. Supreme Court of India, ‘Press Release’ (25 November 2019) accessed on 5 November 2023
6. Justice L.N. Rao, ‘AI and the law’, (Online webinar of Shyam Padman Associates, 6 August 2020) accessed on 5 November 2023
7. European Commission For the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), ‘European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment’ (3-4 December 2018) accessed on 5 November 2023
8. Partha P. Chakrabarti and Ameen Jauhar, ‘Bots in the law’ (Outlook India, 1 March 2021) accessed on 5 November 2023
9. Justice L.N. Rao, ‘AI and the law’, (Online webinar of Shyam Padman Associates, 6 August 2020) accessed on 5 November 2023
10. Ajmer Singh, ‘Supreme Court develops software to make all its 17 benches paperless’, (Economic Times, 26 May, 2020) accessed on 15 March 2021. For more understanding of SUPACE see Justice L.N. Rao, ‘AI and the law’, (Online webinar of Shyam Padman Associates, 6 August 2020) accessed on 5 November 2023
11. Partha P. Chakrabarti and Ameen Jauhar, ‘Bots in the law’ (Outlook India, 1 March 2021) accessed on 5 November 2023
12. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, ‘European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment’ (3-4 December 2018) accessed on 3 November 2023
13. In the United Kingdom, the Lord Chief Justice of the UK Supreme Court has recently convened a ten-member expert committee to look into the ‘likely impact of AI in the English Judiciary. accessed on 5 November 2023
14. David Lat, ‘How Artificial Intelligence Will Revolutionize eDiscovery’ (Above The Law, 25 January 2017) accessed on 14 March 2021 and Ronsin, Lampos & Maîtrepierre, (2018), n 5.
15. Eric Nillier, ‘Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So’ (Wired, 5 March 2019)
16. Jeff Asher and Rob Arthur, ‘Inside the algorithm that tries to predict gun violence in Chicago’ (New York Times, 13 June 2017) accessed on 5 November 2023
17. Adam Liptak, ‘Sent to prison by a software program’s secret algorithms’ (New York Times, 1 May 2017) accessed on 5 November 2023
18. Marion Oswald and others, ‘Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’ proportionality’ (2018) 2 Information & Communications Technology Law at 233 accessed on 5 November 2023
19. Matt Burges, ‘UK police are using AI to inform custodial decisions – but it could be discriminating against the poor’ (Wired, 1 March 2018) accessed 14 November 2023
20. ‘Checkpoint’ (Durham Constabulary) accessed on 5 November 2023
21. Daniel Becker and Isabela Ferrari, ‘VICTOR, the Brazilian Supreme Court’s Artificial Intelligence: a beauty or a beast?’ accessed on 5 November 2023
22. Maria Dymitruk, ‘Ethical artificial intelligence in judiciary’ (February 2019) accessed on 5 November 2023
23. Daniel Willian GRANADO, ‘Artificial Intelligence Applied To The Legal Proceedings: The Brazilian Experience’ (2019) 5 IMODEV accessed on 5 November 2023
24. Maina Siqueira and Marcello Castro, ‘Brazil: The Supreme Federal Tribunal And The “General Repercussion” Requirement’ (Mondaq, 10 March 2008) accessed on 5 November 2023
25. Michaels A.C. (2019), ‘AI, legal change and separation of powers’, 88 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1083 (2020); and Winter (2020) n 6.
26. Michaels A.C. (2019), n 19. Also see John M. Golden, Redundancy: When Law Repeats Itself, 94 TEX. L. REV. 629, 629 (2016); and John M. Golden, Redundancy: When Law Repeats Itself, 94 TEX. L. REV. 629, 629 (2016)
27. (2008) 2 PLR 774
28. https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Responsible-AI-in-the-Indian-Justice-System-A-Strategy-Paper.pdf

 

 

 

---

[1] Jain, P., 2018. Artificial Intelligence for sustainable and effective justice delivery in India. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(06), pp.63-70.

[2] Kalyanakrishnan, Shivaram, Rahul Alex Panicker, Sarayu Natarajan, and Shreya Rao. “Opportunities and challenges for artificial intelligence in India.” In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 164-170. 2018.

[3] Nandi, Anulekha. “Artificial intelligence in education in India: questioning justice and inclusion.” (2019): 140-144.

[4] ‘AI can improve judicial system’s efficiency — full text of CJI Bobde’s Constitution Day speech’ (The Print, 27 November 2019) accessed on 5 November 2023

[5] SUVAAS or the Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software, is a neural translation tool which has been trained using machine-learning processes. It has the capability of translating English judgments and daily orders into nine vernacular scripts, and vice-versa. See the Supreme Court of India’s press release for information on SUVAAS. Supreme Court of India, ‘Press Release’ (25 November 2019) accessed on 5 November 2023

[6] Justice L.N. Rao, ‘AI and the law’, (Online webinar of Shyam Padman Associates, 6 August 2020) accessed on 5 November 2023

[7] European Commission For the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), ‘European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment’ (3-4 December 2018) accessed on 5 November 2023

[8] See generally, Partha P. Chakrabarti and Ameen Jauhar, ‘Bots in the law’ (Outlook India, 1 March 2021) accessed on 5 November 2023

[9] Justice L.N. Rao, ‘AI and the law’, (Online webinar of Shyam Padman Associates, 6 August 2020) accessed on 5 November 2023

[10]  Ajmer Singh, ‘Supreme Court develops software to make all its 17 benches paperless’, (Economic Times, 26 May, 2020) accessed on 15 March 2021. For more understanding of SUPACE see Justice L.N. Rao, ‘AI and the law’, (Online webinar of Shyam Padman Associates, 6 August 2020) accessed on 5 November 2023

[11] Partha P. Chakrabarti and Ameen Jauhar, ‘Bots in the law’ (Outlook India, 1 March 2021) accessed on 5 November 2023

[12] European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, ‘European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment’ (3-4 December 2018) accessed on 3 November 2023

[13]  In the United Kingdom, the Lord Chief Justice of the UK Supreme Court has recently convened a ten-member expert committee to look into the ‘likely impact of AI in the English Judiciary. accessed on 5 November 2023

[14]  David Lat, ‘How Artificial Intelligence Will Revolutionize eDiscovery’ (Above The Law, 25 January 2017) accessed on 14 March 2021 and Ronsin, Lampos & Maîtrepierre, (2018), n 5.

[15] Eric Nillier, ‘Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So’ (Wired, 5 March 2019)

[16] Jeff Asher and Rob Arthur, ‘Inside the algorithm that tries to predict gun violence in Chicago’ (New York Times, 13 June 2017) accessed on 5 November 2023

[17]  Adam Liptak, ‘Sent to prison by a software program’s secret algorithms’ (New York Times, 1 May 2017) accessed on 5 November 2023

[18]  Marion Oswald and others, ‘Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’ proportionality’ (2018) 2 Information & Communications Technology Law at 233 accessed on 5 November 2023

[19] Matt Burges, ‘UK police are using AI to inform custodial decisions – but it could be discriminating against the poor’ (Wired, 1 March 2018) accessed 14 November 2023

[20] ‘Checkpoint’ (Durham Constabulary) accessed on 5 November 2023

[21]  Daniel Becker and Isabela Ferrari, ‘VICTOR, the Brazilian Supreme Court’s Artificial Intelligence: a beauty or a beast?’ accessed on 5 November 2023

[22] Maria Dymitruk, ‘Ethical artificial intelligence in judiciary’ (February 2019) accessed on 5 November 2023

[23]  Daniel Willian GRANADO, ‘Artificial Intelligence Applied To The Legal Proceedings: The Brazilian Experience’ (2019) 5 IMODEV accessed on 5 November 2023

[24]  Maina Siqueira and Marcello Castro, ‘Brazil: The Supreme Federal Tribunal And The “General Repercussion” Requirement’ (Mondaq, 10 March 2008) accessed on 5 November 2023

[25]  Michaels A.C. (2019), ‘AI, legal change and separation of powers’, 88 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1083 (2020); and Winter (2020) n 6.

[26] Michaels A.C. (2019), n 19. Also see John M. Golden, Redundancy: When Law Repeats Itself, 94 TEX. L. REV. 629, 629 (2016); and John M. Golden, Redundancy: When Law Repeats Itself, 94 TEX. L. REV. 629, 629 (2016)

[27] (2008) 2 PLR 774

[28] https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Responsible-AI-in-the-Indian-Justice-System-A-Strategy-Paper.pdf