The Supreme Court has issued draft rules for the use of AI in courts. But ad-hoc use of AI in courts overburdened with cases may increase difficulties and disputes. It is important to understand 4 aspects related to these: 1. According to Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the right to make rules. Under that, the President had approved the Supreme Court Rules 2013. But it is not written in the draft of AI according to which law it has been created. District courts are subordinate to the High Courts of the states. But High Courts are not considered subordinate to the Supreme Court. The formation of All India Judicial Service can lead to judicial reforms on a large scale. But even for that the Supreme Court is not issuing judicial orders. Therefore, implementation of AI in High Courts and District Courts by administrative order of the Supreme Court may create a situation of constitutional crisis. 2. According to the Bar Council of India, AI does not have legal recognition. Therefore, under the Advocates Act, lawyers will be responsible for any wrong material created by AI. Data security laws and related rules are not yet implemented in India. Commercial use of sensitive judicial and personal data of crores of people in pending and old cases through AI would be unconstitutional. Before this, consent of the litigants and lawyers is necessary. Many judges have expressed concern against the increasing chaos due to misuse of AI. Punjab, Haryana High Court has ordered all the district courts that AI platforms cannot be used in legal research and judicial decisions. 3. During Corona, online hearings and live telecast of cases started hurriedly in the courts. But according to the decision of Supreme Court Chief Justice Deepak Mishra in 2018, necessary changes have not been made in the rules yet. The judicial administration is under increasing attack due to the lack of clear rules to prevent commercial use of judicial hearing data. Sangh ideologue KN Govindacharya had filed a petition in the courts against the unsafe use of foreign platforms like WhatsApp, Zoom and YouTube. Chief Justice Chandrachud had said that indigenous tech platform would be used within two years. But it has not been implemented yet. 4. All the big AI platforms are foreign. The Finance Minister is concerned about saving India’s banking system from an AI tsunami like Mythos. There are also no clear provisions in the IT Act to prevent misuse of AI. Due to the absence of necessary provisions for data security and complaint redressal in the draft, the problems of lawyers and judges in the district courts may increase. The Prime Minister had called for the release of poor prisoners and freedom from the burden of trials through the use of technology and AI. But the Supreme Court’s draft does not have a roadmap for judicial reforms, quick disposal of small cases and providing speedy justice to the general public through AI. District courts do not have basic facilities of water, toilets and seating. Then how will the infra for AI evolve? Institutional use of AI requires consultation with all five pillars of the judicial system – the public, the government, the judicial administration, lawyers and judges. Accordingly, laws should be made by the Parliament and the rules of the Supreme Court and High Courts should be changed. Till now the data protection law and its related rules have not been implemented. Commercial use of sensitive judicial and personal data of crores of people in pending and old cases through AI would be unconstitutional. (These are the author’s own views)
Source link
Virag Gupta’s column: Unsafe use of AI in court will increase problems
