"Misuse of Court Hearings Leads to Misinformation, AI in Legal Research Poses Risks: Justice BR Gavai Says, ‘Can a Machine Truly Grasp the Complexities of Justice?’"
Safiya Malik
Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court has raised concerns over the unauthorized use of live-streamed court proceedings, observing that short clips from hearings are frequently shared on social media in ways that misrepresent judicial discussions. Speaking on the topic "Leveraging on Technology within the Judiciary" at a conference organized by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Nairobi, he noted that many content creators, including YouTubers, extract and repurpose these clips, often monetizing them without authorization. This practice, he said, raises questions about intellectual property rights and the ownership of judicial recordings.
Justice Gavai, along with Justice Surya Kant, is on a five-day visit to Kenya on the invitation of the Kenyan Supreme Court.
He pointed out that such videos, when taken out of context, can lead to misinformation and inaccurate reporting. Courts, he suggested, may need to establish guidelines to regulate the usage of live-streamed proceedings to prevent misuse while maintaining transparency and public access.
Justice Gavai also addressed the growing reliance on artificial intelligence in legal research. While AI-based tools have helped with case management, listing, and scheduling, he cautioned against overdependence on them for legal research. Instances have been reported where AI platforms, including ChatGPT, have generated fake case citations and fabricated legal facts. He noted that while AI can process vast amounts of legal data quickly, it lacks the discernment to verify sources accurately. This has resulted in lawyers and researchers unknowingly citing non-existent cases or misleading legal precedents, leading to professional embarrassment and potential legal consequences.
He also spoke about AI being used to predict court outcomes, describing it as a development that raises important questions about the nature of justice. He questioned whether a machine, without human emotions or moral reasoning, could truly understand the complexities of legal disputes. Justice, he said, often involves ethical considerations and contextual understanding, which remain beyond the reach of algorithms. While AI can assist legal professionals, it should not replace human judgment in the judicial process.
Justice Gavai also gave an overview of how Indian courts have adopted live streaming and virtual courts. He stated that the evolution particularly benefits junior lawyers and those practicing in district and lower courts, who might have otherwise struggled to make their presence felt in higher judicial forums. "This technological advancement has not only streamlined legal proceedings but has also democratized access to courts, particularly the Supreme Court of India, making it more inclusive and accessible to legal professionals and litigants alike," he said.
The increasing accessibility of live-streamed court proceedings, he noted, has improved transparency but also created challenges in regulating their use. Courts may need to develop measures to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of video clips in misleading ways. On the issue of AI, he emphasized that while the technology has its advantages, legal professionals must independently verify AI-generated research before relying on it in legal arguments. The judiciary, he added, must carefully consider how AI is integrated into the legal system to ensure it remains a tool for assistance rather than a replacement for human reasoning.
