CJI flags misuse of AI, agrees to hear PIL seeking guidelines on its use in judiciary

Flagging the misuse of artificial intelligence, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Monday said he was aware of a morphed video circulating on social media that falsely showed a shoe-throwing incident in his courtroom.

“Even this court is using AI, but the ills are such…We are aware of it; we have seen the morphed video of us (two),” a Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said while agreeing to hear after two weeks a petition seeking guidelines to regulate the use of AI tools in the judiciary.

On October 6, advocate Rakesh Kishore (71) allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe towards the CJI in his courtroom. The Bar Council of India had suspended his licence with immediate effect.

The petitioner’s counsel cautioned against unchecked adoption of AI tools in court processes and sought a policy to govern the use of AI in judicial functions, warning that generative AI systems can embed “systemic biases” and operate as “black boxes” whose internal logic remains opaque even to their creators.

According to the petitioner, the use of generative AI is problematic as it entails a complex process which may generate words and images not meant by the user. The plea stated that AI integrated into the judiciary and judicial functions should have data that is free from bias, and data ownership should be transparent enough to ensure stakeholders’ liability.

Underlining the challenges posed by emerging technologies, Chief Justice of India-designate Justice Surya Kant had also on Saturday flagged the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to target women journalists.

Speaking at the 31st anniversary of the Indian Women’s Press Corps (IWPC), Justice Kant had said, “These (AI) tools are also being weaponised to circulate false and malicious narratives, which are later sensationalised. The victims endure reputational damage, loss of credibility, and even social ostracism.”

Noting that often, the manipulated content persisted online indefinitely, long after the story had retreated from the news cycle, making the damage permanent and devastating for those involved, he said, “As a responsible democracy, we cannot afford to normalise or tolerate such happenings as an ‘inevitable consequence’ of online discourse.”