HC flags ‘pop-up justice’, seeks state-wide sensitisation of trial courts on use of AI, online legal material

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed comprehensive sensitisation of all judicial officers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh on the responsible use of online information after finding that an Additional Sessions Judge rejected anticipatory bail in an NDPS case on the strength of a pop-up notification from a legal news app.

“All the Judicial Officers in the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh, be duly sensitised nay trained regarding the responsible and judicious use of the online information/technology. The judicial officers must be reminded that only authenticated judicial precedents and legally recognised sources may be relied upon while rendering judicial decisions. The sanctity of judicial orders demands a careful and disciplined approach and indiscriminate reliance on unverified digital material has the potential to undermine the integrity of the judicial process,” the Bench asserted.

The direction by Justice Sumeet Goel came in a case where the trial judge relied on a pop-up notification from an online legal magazine and reproduced it to support his reasoning — without citing the Supreme Court judgment, its citation, or reading the order.

The judge later submitted in his written comments that he had “recalled the pop-up of the judgment of Supreme Court of India. Therefore, I applied the law laid down and dismissed the anticipatory bail.” Justice Goel asserted the judicial officer apparently proceeded to rely on the headline pop-up of an online magazine and did not bother to read the entire judgment/order passed by the Supreme Court “much less understanding impart/dicta thereof”.

Putting the issue in institutional perspective, Justice Goel asserted: “Reliance on pop-up notifications or brief extracts displayed by online applications, magazines or unverified digital platforms cannot be treated as a legitimate or authoritative source of law. The judicial orders must be founded strictly on authentic and verifiable legal material such as reported judgments, official publications, law journals of established credibility or certified copies”.

Justice Goel added any form of casual or indirect reference or digital alerts could not only by itself be made the basis for determining the rights and liberties of the individuals. The Bench cautioned that technology, though ubiquitous, could not override judicial discipline.

“I deem it appropriate to emphasise that such practice must not be adopted by the courts subordinate to this high court. The judicial officers are required to exercise utmost caution while using technology based tools, online news portals, legal blogs, mobile applications or digital notifications. While technology may assist in staying updated with legal developments but it cannot substitute proper judicial scrutiny and verification,” Justice Goel asserted.

The Bench added information retrieval ecosystem of the inter-webs had become a vast, formidable highway — an ever-expanding repository of text, images, videos and applications that permeated daily life. Its instant accessibility did ease processes, bridge information gaps and made big-data insights readily available. It functioned as a massive portable virtual library. But the operative word remained “assistance”, with artificial intelligence adding yet another layer of convenience.

“While we could use the inter webs for assistance and eliciting data and information, it comes with an unmissable rider that it must be verified for authenticity; its metadata – providing context and descriptive information about a file or dataset, such as the author, creation date, file size, and format, source of information as well as its efficacy must be tested thoroughly; it must be simon-pure. Especially, when this crucial authentication could have a life-changing impact or change the outcome of a judgment,” Justice Goel asserted

The Bench added social media platforms, web pages, commercial websites and private legal portals might offer useful information, but the integrity of material circulating in the digital spaces was required to be verified, lest fragmented or amorphous content — with no proprietor imprimatur — lead to confusion and serious consequences.

The Bench added the judicial system remained accountable for every piece of information it relied upon. Authentic and original sources, already available to the judiciary in abundance, must form the basis of all orders. Judicial officers, therefore, must be sensitised to the disciplined use of digital information, the need to rely on verified data, and the judicial accountability that underpins every pronouncement.”

Why this order matters

Justice Sumeet Goel’s ruling makes it clear that the internet or artificial intelligence could be used as “huge portable virtual library”, but emphasises that these tools offer only assistance, not authority. Every digital input was required to be verified for its authenticity, metadata, provenance and accuracy before it is relied upon.