Using AI and ChatGPT in legal cases has become a topic of debate in Indian courts. Last week, the Manipur High Court revealed that it had resorted to using ChatGPT 3.5 and Google for additional research in a case. This instance is one of the few where a High Court in India has utilized artificial intelligence (AI) to aid in judicial decisions. Across India, and globally, courts remain cautious about integrating AI into legal work.
In January 2021, Zakir Hussain, a 36-year-old member of his district’s Village Defence Force (VDF), was dismissed after a suspect escaped while he was on duty. Hussain, not provided with a dismissal order, challenged his disengagement in the Manipur High Court. Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, overseeing the case, instructed the police to detail the process for VDF personnel’s disengagement. The affidavit provided by the police failed to clarify what the VDF was, leading the court to seek information via ChatGPT.
ChatGPT described the VDF as consisting of “local community volunteers trained to protect their villages from various threats, including insurgent activities and ethnic violence.” This definition helped Justice Sharma rule in Hussain’s favor, overturning his dismissal. Justice Sharma cited a 2022 memorandum from the Manipur Home Department mandating that VDF personnel should be allowed to explain themselves in cases of alleged charges, a procedure Hussain was denied.
Varied Responses from Other High Courts
Judges are exploring the potential benefits of using AI and ChatGPT in legal cases. In March 2023, the Punjab & Haryana High Court saw Justice Anoop Chitkara using ChatGPT in a bail hearing. The case involved Jaswinder Singh, accused of assault leading to death. Justice Chitkara asked ChatGPT about bail jurisprudence concerning assaults involving cruelty. The AI’s response, which was included in the final judgment, suggested that judges might deny bail or set high bail amounts in such cases to ensure public safety.
Justice Chitkara emphasized that his use of ChatGPT was not to influence the case’s merits but to provide a broader perspective on bail principles where cruelty is involved. Conversely, the Delhi High Court has been wary of AI in legal proceedings. In August 2023, Justice Pratibha M. Singh ruled in favor of Christian Louboutin in a trademark infringement case. The plaintiff’s lawyers used ChatGPT to demonstrate the brand’s recognition for its “spike shoe style” and “red sole.” However, Justice Singh cautioned against using AI for legal or factual determinations, citing the potential for AI to generate incorrect or fictional information.
Global Concerns and Guidelines
The issue of AI generating false information is not limited to India. In 2023, a lawyer in Manhattan was fined $5,000 for submitting fabricated legal research produced by ChatGPT in a case against Avianca Airlines.
In response to such incidents, the UK judiciary issued guidelines in December 2023 on AI usage in courts. Judges in the UK can use AI to summarize texts, make presentations, or draft emails, but they are advised against relying on AI for legal research or analysis.
Currently, India lacks specific guidelines on the use of generative AI like ChatGPT in the judiciary. As courts experiment with AI, there is a pressing need for clear regulations to ensure that the use of AI aids justice without compromising legal integrity.
The use of ChatGPT by Indian High Courts has sparked a significant debate regarding the benefits and drawbacks of incorporating artificial intelligence into judicial processes. Using AI and ChatGPT in legal cases can streamline research processes and provide valuable insights The Manipur High Court’s reliance on ChatGPT for additional research in Zakir Hussain’s case highlights the potential advantages of AI. In this case, ChatGPT provided a clear and concise explanation of the Village Defence Force (VDF), aiding Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma in making an informed decision. This instance demonstrates how AI can help courts access information quickly.
Also Read: Why ChatGPT-Maker Sam Altman Was Fired: Unveiling the Inside Story.
