HC flags new ‘Google era’ of courtroom arguments

Artificial intelligence may be the buzzword of the age, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that arguing intelligence still matters more inside the courtroom, and AI's use inside the courtroom could lead to “harsh order”.

Taking a firm view of advocates depending on mobile phones and online searches — including AI tools — to field judicial queries mid-hearing, Justice Sanjay Vashisth of the high court observed that such information “ought to have been collected in advance while preparing the case for arguments.”

“This court is concerned and bothered time and again by the respective members of the Bar using mobile phones during the course of hearing, just in front of the court,” Justice Vashisth asserted, adding that sometimes proceedings had to be stalled “awaiting the answer, which would come only after retrieving information from such mobile phone.”

The assertion came as Justice Vashisth referred to an earlier case where a lawyer’s phone was seized for similar conduct. “As informed by the court staff officials, the information was sent to the Executive of the High Court Bar Association for its circulation amongst the Bar members,” Justice Vashisth observed before directing the latest order’s circulation among the Bar members.

“The President/Secretary of the Bar Association may apprise the worthy members not to compel the court to pass any harsh order on account of repeated use of mobile phones during the course of hearing to update themselves through artificial intelligence/online platforms/Google information,” Justice Vashisth added. The case will be taken up again on November 20.

The Bench has already made it clear that such a practice was wholly unacceptable. “Firstly, the use of a mobile phone while addressing the arguments in the court reflects a discourteous and unprofessional attitude, which cannot be condoned. Secondly, unlike iPads or laptops, which are considered professional tools integrated with the office setup and case files, mobile phones are not regarded as acceptable devices for use during arguments in court proceedings,” Justice Vashisth had added, while taking up another matter. The Bench had, in that case, taken note of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner began searching on his mobile phone during the course of submissions “in an attempt to retrieve the details of the case”.