At the MNLU Symposium on AI, Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the limitations of artificial intelligence in the legal profession. He remarked that while the idea of “AI Judges” is often discussed, true justice requires human judgment. “Judges and lawyers cannot be driven by AI in 95 per cent of the cases,” he stated. Justice Bhuyan highlighted the irreplaceable role of human discretion and empathy in the judicial process.
New Delhi: Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recently remarked that judges and lawyers enhanced by Artificial Intelligence cannot replace their human counterparts.
Justice Bhuyan stated,
“’AI Judges’ have often been talked about. Can these give justice? Judges and lawyers cannot be driven by AI in 95 percent of the cases. When we are dealing with natural persons, the dignity of humans is paramount and must be respected. Individual autonomy must be protected,”
He made these comments at the National Symposium on AI: Privacy, Security, and IPR, held on April 5 at the Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai (MNLU Mumbai). The event was organized in collaboration with the Centre for Information Communication Technology and Law (CICTL) and the Centre for Advanced Legal Studies, Training and Research (CALSTAR).
Present at the symposium were Advocate General of Maharashtra, Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf, and Vice-Chancellor of MNLU Mumbai, Prof. (Dr.) Dilip Ukey.
In his address, Justice Bhuyan explored the implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the legal system, particularly concerning privacy, data security, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). He emphasized that “privacy must be viewed not as an isolated concept but through the lens of rights-based jurisprudence, referencing the maxim that every man’s house is his castle.”
Justice Bhuyan reinforced the idea of privacy as a fundamental right, drawing from the insights of retired Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, who referred to Gary Bostwick’s understanding of privacy.
This understanding encompasses three key aspects: protection against state intrusion into the physical body, safeguarding personal information from unauthorized use, and preserving the ability to make fundamental personal choices without external interference.
Also Read: JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
However, he also noted that privacy can be intruded upon by non-state actors. With the extensive generation of data, AI systems can easily sift through personal information and utilize it indiscriminately.
Justice Bhuyan traced the evolution of the right to privacy in India to highlight its status as a fundamental aspect of human dignity and an inalienable right. He referenced several legal cases, including MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra, A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, among others.
He also acknowledged the importance of the contrasting ‘right to know.’
He explained,
“India is a liberal democracy governed by law wherein on one hand, there is the right to privacy which must be protected and on the other hand there is the right to know which also could not be disregarded. This right to know is a potent weapon in the hands of citizens within the broader framework of democracy,”
In addition to privacy rights, Justice Bhuyan addressed data security and the recent developments in legal frameworks and policies.
When discussing intellectual property rights, he reiterated former Chief Justice of India A.S. Anand’s statement from 1997: “unlike physical property, IP cannot be easily secured in a deposit box or bank vault.”
This inherent vulnerability makes intellectual property susceptible to strategic exploitation, he observed.
emphasized that with the rapid rise of AI and innovations generated by it, there is an urgent need for policymakers and stakeholders to establish a robust framework to protect the products of human creativity.