Relying on AI for Legal Research Risky, Says SC Justice: Report

Relying on AI for Legal Research Risky, Says SC Justice: Report
Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court of India has advocated caution in using artificial intelligence in the judiciary. While acknowledging that AI can be a beneficial tool to ease the administrative burden of case management, he noted that it can also be used for effective listing and scheduling of cases. However, Justice Gavai warned about the risks inherent in over-dependence on AI, according to LiveLaw.

  • Make Telecom Talk My Trusted Source
  • Source of Google
  • Source of Google

Also Read: Trilegal Partners with Lucio to Drive AI-Powered Transformation in Legal Services

AI in Judiciary

Speaking at a conference organised by the Supreme Court of Kenya, Justice Gavai reportedly highlighted that AI-powered scheduling tools have been integrated into case management systems to allocate court dates intelligently, balance the workload of judges, and ensure optimal use of court resources. However, he pointed out ethical concerns arising from the use of AI for legal research. There have been instances where platforms like ChatGPT have generated fake citations and fabricated legal facts.

Risks of Misinformation from AI-Generated Content

According to Justice Gavai, While AI can process vast amounts of legal data and provide quick summaries, it lacks the ability to verify sources with human-level discernment. As a result, lawyers and researchers trusting AI-generated information have unknowingly cited cases that do not exist or relied on misleading legal precedents, leading to professional embarrassment and potential legal consequences, the report said.

Misuse by Content Creators

Justice Gavai also expressed concern about content creators misusing live-streamed court hearings. He reportedly noted that short clips are often sensationalised and used to spread misinformation. He emphasised that such actions by content creators and YouTubers raise questions about intellectual property rights and the ownership of judicial proceedings. Therefore, he called for clear guidelines on the usage of live-streamed court proceedings.