Decoding- Ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary – by Manish Mehrotra

“You must be in tune with the times and prepared to break with tradition.” said James Agee. However, I read this in the present context as “You must be in tune with the times and prepared to change and adapt”  Whenever any technological advancement takes shape, it does come with certain problems, however the difficulties and the risks of its abuse can not deter or stop progress from happening. Thus, one has to move in accord with times and be careful of adopting technology in his/her area of work ethically. In a recent case which came up before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court- an articulate and precise judgement has been delivered by the High Court in a case of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the judgement passed by a Additional Civil Judge; was sought to be set aside on the ground that the Learned Trial Court in its order had referred to certain judgements and the said judgements were neither available by citation nor by the parties names. Those are non-existent rulings, so, therefore the order was prayed to be set aside. The point of consideration framed by the Hon’ble High Court was “Whether the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 deserves to be set aside as it refers to the non-existent citations/rulings generated by artificial intelligence tool?” The Hon’ble High Court then proceeded the issue of use of artificial intelligence (AI) in its present stage of development, may function only as a tool capable of assisting in tasks such as organizing information and summarizing records. It does not possess consciousness, moral reasoning or the capacity to weigh evidence, or appreciate the nuances of human conduct. The Hon’ble Court has also considered English judgments and instances of citing fake authority in addition to other similar instances before Courts. The Court observed “This highlights the risks involved in relying on AI tools without meaningful human oversight to verify the accuracy of the assertions they generate. The people who employ AI for legal research should rigorously scrutinize its outputs, including the authorities cited. Such tools may lack access to the complete body of relevant law, may not fully comprehend the query posed, or may overlook material authorities. In such circumstances, AI systems can produce responses that appear persuasive yet are factually or legally incorrect. More concerningly, they may fabricate authorities or cite existing cases that are irrelevant to the issue under consideration.” The Hon’ble Court then further holds “Therefore, in the view of this Court, the exercise of actual intelligence over artificial intelligence should be preferred and the use of Artificial Intelligence should be done with great care, caution and wisdom. The learned Trial Courts while using the Artificial Intelligence tools in judgments shall remain vigilant cautious and act with judicial application of mind to make just decision ensuring that the judgments/orders are based on correct legal principles.” Nevertheless, irrespective of the non-existent citations referred by the Trial Court based on the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Court upheld the legality and validity of the order of the Trail Court, primarily on the ground that irrespective of referring the non-existent rulings, the Trial Court applied the correct law of the land and hence the order was sustained. This judgment, I believe, demonstrates the point that artificial intelligence is only an assisting tool to the actual human intelligence and should never be allowed to replace human intelligence. ….to be continued

Also shared on X