Court emphasizes the importance of human oversight in AI usage for legal research and dismisses petition challenging the commissioner's report.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, under the esteemed judgment of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, has dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Gummadi Usha Rani and another, challenging the validity of the advocate commissioner's report submitted in a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioners argued that the report was biased and based on AI-generated non-existent citations, which should render the order invalid. However, the court maintained that the principles of law applied were correct and appropriately aligned with the facts of the case.
The case revolved around allegations that the advocate commissioner, appointed to identify the property purchased under Document No.6404 of 1989, had colluded with the plaintiffs and failed to follow the High Court's directions, particularly by not utilizing the Town/Mandal Surveyor's assistance. The petitioners sought to strike down the commissioner's report on these grounds.
Justice Tilhari emphasized that the commissioner's report, while a valuable piece of evidence, must be weighed like any other evidence and cannot be dismissed based on mere assertions of bias without substantial proof. The court highlighted the necessity of examining such claims during the trial and cross-examination stages.
Significantly, the judgment addressed the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judicial processes, acknowledging its utility in organizing information but cautioning against its unregulated use. The court noted that AI-generated citations, while potentially beneficial, require rigorous scrutiny to ensure their accuracy and authenticity. The judgment referred to similar cases from the England and Wales High Court, where reliance on fictitious or irrelevant authorities led to judicial concerns.
Justice Tilhari pointed out that while the trial court's order had inadvertently referred to non-existent AI-generated citations, this did not vitiate the validity of the order, as the correct legal principles were applied to the case's facts. The court reiterated that the exercise of human judgment should take precedence over artificial intelligence, ensuring that decisions are based on verified and authentic legal references.
The court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining integrity in legal proceedings and the responsibility of legal professionals to verify AI-generated material thoroughly. It highlights the potential harms of relying on AI without human oversight, including the risk of citing fictitious judgments or misrepresenting legal principles.
The judgment serves as a significant reminder of the evolving role of AI in legal research and the critical need for meaningful human intervention to uphold the credibility and trust in judicial processes.
Bottom Line:
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judicial processes must be accompanied by meaningful human oversight. Incorrect or non-existent citations generated by AI tools do not vitiate a judicial order if the principles of law applied are correct and appropriately applied to the facts of the case.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 10, Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2842685
