Too Much Dependence On AI Will Destroy Legal Profession: Karnataka High Court Remarks On Alleged Creation Of Fake Judgments

As the Central Government on Thursday while opposing X Corp's plea against take down directives argued before the Karnataka High Court that fake judgments were being used in cases through the use of Artificial Intelligence, the court orally remarked that too much dependence on AI "will destroy the profession". 

During the hearing, appearing for the central government Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before Justice M Nagaprassana:

"AI (Artificial Intelligence) is completely control less. There are cases where lawyers start using AI for purpose of research. If I feed my facts of the case and then it gives me a curated judgment which is fake...I came across a case where wife filed an appeal and husband opposed the appeal and relied on judgment which were fake".

To this the high court orally remarked, "Too much dependence will destroy the profession...I keep saying dependency on Artificial intelligence should not make your Intelligence Artificial". 

The SG was making submissions in X Corp's plea seeking a declaration that Sec 79(3)(b) IT Act does not confer authority to issue information blocking orders and such orders can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act r/w IT Rules.

"AI is boon for development but has become hazardous for many reasons. Law will have to develop to meet the technological advancement today," he said. 

SG Mehta thereafter cited an example of a "fake video" of the "Ukraine's President" and further cited examples of "click bait posts".

He thereafter said, "I am showing these examples (to show) that the position which was at the time of US Judgement (Reno) and Shreya Singhal was different and time now is different. It is not to create any prejudice". 

Referring to Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) he said that it deals with penal sections. For context, the US Supreme Court had in this case ruled that anti-indecency provisions under the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated freedom of speech guaranteed under First Amendment to the US Constitution. 

SG read through observations in the judgement which state,"About 40 million people used the Internet at the time of trial, a number that is expected to mushroom to 200 million by 1999...Moreover, the Internet is not as "invasive" as radio or television". 

The court at this stage orally remarked, "Internet was a military program initially, which started in 1970.Then a modem was in KBS speed we are today in nano bites...Now Radio and television are in oblivion". 

SG further submitted, "Every platform has their internal rules milord. You may have the power you may choose not to exercise but what we will see is that you have the power". 

Further referring to pleas seeking the right to be forgotten the Solicitor General said, "There is a now a new concept which is growing called 'Right to be Forgotten'. Suppose if an officer is arrested for corruption, and after some years he is acquitted. Then this concept is growing". 

The court remarked that it had passed many orders on Right to be Forgotten.  

The matter will be heard on Friday. More details from the hearing here.