When Code Meets Courtroom: AI in the Indian Legal System

This article is written by Ms. Sadhana Tiwari. She is a student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal. 

INTRODUCTION 

When was AI born? Probably around 1950s when McCarthy defined AI as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines” at a seminal summer workshop that officially launched AI as a research field (Dartmouth Conference, 1956). But in 21st century, it has transformed the scenario. Law is not an exception. 

In India, the increasing use of AI in sectors such as facial recognition system, decision making, algorithmic data analysis and a plethora of other fields has raised serious legal and constitutional questions. While AI promises efficiency, accuracy, and speed, but its unchecked deployment poses many serious concerns.

ABSENCE OF A COMPREHENSIVE AI REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

The current Indian legal system lacks a comprehensive law to govern and regulate AI development and applications. This lands us in legal jargon. Basic constitutional rights, including fundamental rights, are surrounded by uncertainty.  Let’s dive deep into it. 

An analysis of AI impacting our systems 

1. Equality and Non-Arbitrariness under Article 14: AI systems take decisions based on data fed to them. If this data is one which is biased, then AI may treat some people unfairly. When this happens, people are discriminated based on the falsified data. This goes directly against Article 14 of the Constitution, which requires that all decisions by the State must be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. 
2. Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a)): Many digital platforms make use of AI to automatically remove or block online content. While this is done to control harmful material, AI systems often cannot understand context, sarcasm, or intent and as a result, lawful and genuine expressions may also be removed. When people see their posts being taken down without any clear reason, they may hesitate to express their opinions freely. This creates a “chilling effect” on free speech, where individuals restrict their own expression out of fear. This is blatantly contradictory with Fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. 
3. Privacy (Article 21): Adding on, Article 21 which is right to life is also in peril. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21, which draws out a conclusion that unregulated AI-driven surveillance and data profiling is constitutionally suspected. The decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(1978) expanded the scope of Article 21 by introducing the requirement of fair, just, and reasonable procedure. 
4. Accountability Gaps in AI-Driven Decision Making: In AI systems, the model is created by a private entity by complex decision making processes, which may have certain biases, and these models are deployed by the government. If the deployed AI model wrongly affects a person, who would be responsible: the AI model that gave the decision or the private entity making the model or the government using it? This creates another problem which is called accountability gap. Such an accountability gap is  problematic under Articles 14 and 21. 
5. Copyright and Ownership Challenges: Then arises the issues of copyright. Who holds the right to claim the work generated by AI and posted on the internet? Same content can be posted by many even with different prompts. If there’s no meaningful human creative input, courts will deny copyright as Delhi High Court judgement pronounced in Navigators Logistics Ltd. Vs Kashif Qureshi & Ors(2018). 
6. Legislative Gaps : Indian laws like the IT Act, 2000 do not clearly define deepfakes, voice cloning, or synthetic media. This makes it difficult to even classify such acts as distinct offences, leading to weak enforcement.

Misuse of Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Instances in India

During the 2023–24 election period, multiple AI-generated deep fake videos circulated on social media platforms where late Jayalalithaa and late M. Karunanidhi were seen alive and campaigning for their party. In some videos, Narendra Modi was seen dancing or in another delivering hare speech against Muslims. 

Many Indian personalities have been victims of AI-generated videos and images circulating on social media without consent. It is also hampering the progress of now emerging but still weaker section of society like women as tampered videos of actress Rashmika Mandana, YouTuber Payal Gaming went viral on social media downgrading their reputation by distribution of obscene content. 

Even honourable Supreme Court has encountered instances where litigants presented AI-generated fake judgments and citations, prompting judicial concern over misuse within legal proceedings (Supreme Court observations on AI misuse, 2023–24). 

Judicial Response to the Challenges Posed by AI

There’s no law which explicitly handles the issues raised by the emerging manipulations of usage of AI. Amid all these chaos, there’s still a ray of light, thanks to Indian judiciary.  The Supreme Court has clearly stated that AI will not shape judicial decisions and that judicial reasoning would remain with human judges only so as to ensure rationality and curb arbitrariness. Several judges have cautioned lawyers and researchers not to depend blindly on AI tools for legal research or case citations, as it may give bogus references, terming it as hallucinations.  A milestone initiative was made by Kerala High Court where it issued specific guidelines restricting the use of AI in judgements (Kerala High Court Guidelines on AI, 2024). 

WAY FORWARD: FROM RECOGNITION TO REGULATION

As AI continues to integrate into the web of complex decision making in justice delivery systems, India needs to adapt a balanced approach, keeping in view that the issues are addressed and the constitutional validity is safeguarded. 

• Explainable AI (XAI) should be adopted so courts can understand how and why a decision was made, ensuring non-arbitrariness.
• The UK Online Safety Framework emphasises proportionality and human oversight in automated content moderation. This can be an inspiration for Indian legislatures too. 
• EU AI ACT, which is the first ever legislative law on emerging technology, can serve as a guidebook for creating new laws, keeping in mind the environment of India and its implications on the people. 
• India must adopt a dedicated, risk-based law with an independent regulator to govern high-risk systems and move beyond the outdated IT Act, 2000.
• Deepfakes and AI voice cloning must be  criminalised and there exists a need for cross-border cooperation to address impersonation, misinformation, and electoral manipulation originating beyond Indian jurisdiction.
• NITI Aayog’s National AI Strategy focuses on using AI in a simple and responsible way to improve everyday sectors so that its benefits reach everyone.

CONCLUSION 

At every step, a new technology is invented and it doesn’t dies, it stays for a long time with people’s engagement. We need AI just for assistance not for dependence. Artificial Intelligence does improves the effectiveness and helps solve some of the deadlock  conditions of life, but at the same time it’s unchecked use compromises legal principles. Thus, to tackle the problem of unregulated usage, there’s a need to fill the void between laws. Creation of new laws, recognition of certain types of offences and its inclusion to existing provisions via amendments are a few tasks needed at the stage. Inspiration from other countries should be taken, while coordination beyond border is required. A balanced approach would surely save the era.