IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) IN LEGAL PRACTICE
- INTRODUCTION:
This century began positively, conquering a worldwide fear of the ‘Y2K’ virus. Over the last 25 years, we have witnessed significant technological growth and advancements. Information technology is no longer limited to storing and transmitting information; it now controls our day-to-day lives. This decade brought us two technological advances: Artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT).
The introduction of ChatGPT revolutionised the way we use computers. A difficult and time-consuming task of human intelligence could now be performed in a few seconds like a magic wand with the help of AI. Now, computers and mobiles can write poems, articulate arguments, summarise bulky documents, write research articles, etc.
According to GOOGLE, ‘Artificial intelligence is a field of science concerned with building computers and machines that can reason, learn, and act in such a way that would normally require human intelligence or that involves data whose scale exceeds what humans can analyse.’[1]
In simple terms, AI stimulates human intelligence. Current AI does not replicate general human intelligence. It is a generative AI (GenAI) based on large language models. Modern AI is also equipped with machine learning, where systems learn from vast amounts of data. Deep learning, a subset of machine learning that uses neural networks with many layers, is particularly prominent in areas like image and speech recognition. AI models are continuously evolving. Multimodal AI processes and understands information from multiple data types such as images, audio, and video.
In the present article, I’ll try to explore how AI is incorporated into legal practice, how the judiciary reflects on the usage of AI and its limitations.
- USE OF AI IN LEGAL PRACTICE:
In legal practice, there are thousands of statutes and rules, several legal concepts and principles, hundreds of rules for interpretation, and millions of judgments applying these legal provisions. In short, the legal profession has its own large language model (LLM) for GenAI. Thus, legal practice is not immune from the use of AI.
GenAI helps perform routine tasks to increase professionals’ productivity, such as drafting standard documents, analysing contractual document clauses, drafting simple court applications and, to some extent, legal research.
Certain platforms provide AI tools to help law firms and individual legal practitioners. In India, AI tools are available for everything from legal drafting to legal research. Law interns, juniors, and lawyers now use these tools to stay ahead.
Currently, many law firms are utilising AI models to review and analyse documents, manage contracts, automate administrative tasks for daily operations, provide drafting assistance, and conduct legal research. The use of AI is time and cost-effective. There is a lower chance of errors in reviewing the documents or contract management. AI could be used as a guideline for legal research and drafting but cannot replace human intelligence.
AI could draft a complaint, an application, written statements, appeals, petitions, etc. A simple command may draft a suit for partition; it may include all the particulars provided to the chatbot. The user’s data is analysed and contextualised with its own data on a large language model. In a few seconds, the draft is ready, including aspects that the user had never thought of. To draft an appeal, the user is required to upload an impugned order, pleadings, etc. Once data is provided, with the blink of your eyes, the Appeals are ready. Based on the provided data, it can draft questions of law more precisely and is often helpful in drafting Second Appeal u/s.100 of CPC or Special Leave Petitions u/s.136 of the Constitution of India. One command to draft an adjournment application will give you a ready application to seek an adjournment for several reasons.
The courts in India welcomed the use of innovative technology and experimented with AI. The Delhi High Court expressed its opinion in favour of deploying ‘Artificial Intelligence’ in the matter of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to prevent infringements, much prior to the introduction of GenAI.[2] Punjab and Haryana High Court only for the purpose of a broader view on the bail jurisprudence referred to the answer provided by the ChatGPT (AI Tool) however, clearly observed that: ‘the answer on ChatGPT is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.’[3]
While dealing with S.207 of the Cr.P.C. and Art.21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that providing a translation of a chargesheet will not be difficult with the availability of technology and Artificial Intelligence in a case where the advocate does not understand the language of the chargesheet.[4] Later, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court clearly observed that trial courts must be equipped with advanced technology, including artificial intelligence, to conduct trials.[5]
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its judgment dealing with the regularisation policy in State Government services, suggested to State Government to dispose the similar matters with the help of AI.[6] In Madhu Tanwar vs. State of Punjab, the High Court observed that: “The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, has virtually become impossible.”[7] On the other hand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed concern over the advancement of Technology and AI to deal with the economic offences and challenges before the Investigating agency to detect and comprehend such offences.[8]
In a commercial suit related to IPR, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court noted the creation of deepfake videos while granting an interim injunction.[9] In another case, the Hon’ble High Court granted an injunction against one of the defendants using the GenAI tool to exploit the Plaintiff’s image and persona.[10] Similarly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court also passed an injunction order to prevent the use of AI to protect the plaintiff’s rights.[11]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that: “In this era of artificial intelligence and the digitalisation of most business transactions, an agreement between the parties entered into through emails, evidencing transactions between them, cannot be excluded from the definition of evidence, especially when a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has also been filed.” In another case, the Hon’ble bench suggested conceptualising an Artificial Intelligence app to videograph crime scenes in compliance with the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to provide necessary clues and indications to the Investigating Officer for pursuing a particular direction or regarding a specific person whose evidence is grimly present at the scene. Additionally, it was suggested that an application that can interpret sign language for persons with disabilities be developed.[12]
While observing the role of teachers, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a remark that:
“The positive and negative applications of artificial intelligence are being experienced by everyone today. Not only illiterate or semi-literate individuals but also well-educated people fall victim to various cyber-crimes. In this context, the role of teachers becomes crucial, as they can guide students on the dos and don’ts of use of technology.”[13]
The apex court has noted a global practice of smart contracts as referred to in the book of Richard Susskind[14] and the comment of the then Hon’ble CJI Mr. Dhananjay Chandrachood. Technology and artificial intelligence are integrated into commercial transactions. In a smart contract, the contract’s clauses are immediately enforced in case of breach with the integration of technology and artificial intelligence.[15]
Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, while delivering the historic judgment of the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, has given a credits for the valuable assistance given by the Artificial Intelligence.[16]
- Limitation of AI in Legal Practice:
Obviously, the AI-based drafts required to be revised and customised. The customisation is necessary because the AI models are generative in nature. The available data is analysed based on the user’s query and generates new content. For example, if I put a query about any particular judgment on the specific proposition, it would generate a legal citation or may be a reasoned judgment that any courts have not delivered. AI often provide hallucinated cases. Hallucination is one of the limitations of generative AI.
The UK court delivered the first reported judgment dealing with the limitation in AI-generated citations in Harber v Commissions for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC). The court approved the observations of judge Kastel who observed that:
“Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions. The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court’s time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the…judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity.”
AI-generated hallucinated case laws are being used rampantly. Though the usage is innocent, it has far-reaching effects. When it is found that the judgment cited is AI-generated or hallucinated, it not only causes embracement but also has serious implications for the delivery of justice. There are cases wherein courts have taken suo moto actions against the advocates for citing AI-generated case laws. In one of the Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court, it was argued, in open court, that the judgment cited by one of the Hon’ble High Court Judge are AI-generated. However, the court relegated the Petitioner back to the High Court to point out an error on the face of the record.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in its recent judgment, while welcoming the use of AI, observed that “when the application of thoughtful consideration through actual intelligence is required, it cannot be cast aside simply because AI and automation represent the expedient future. The principles of natural justice and fairness are too valuable to be sacrificed at the altar of AI and automation expediency.”[17]
The Court of Justice of the European Union recently considered that the huge amount of data individual data collected by the technology could be used for the advantage of society. However, if any particular program, with the assistance of AI, comes to a conclusion, it might be impossible to understand the reason why a given program arrived at such a conclusion. The absence of availability of rationale may deprive the user of seeking a judicial remedy.[18] Justice Sonak while dealing with a case wherein the authority refused to accept manual bills, observed that it cannot be at the cost of mortgaging human intelligence entirely. The court further held that Human and artificial intelligence must join to serve the people and achieve ease of business and not be at loggerheads.[19]
- Conclusion:
The advancement in technologies, including Artificial Intelligence, is inevitable. The legal system is largely benefiting from the positive usage of AI. It is helpful for the entire system to save time and cost. However, it is for the user to choose right or wrong while dealing with Artificial Intelligence. The over-reliance on present-day AI may not only cause embracement or a loss to a judicial system and litigants, but it may also paralyse our thinking capacity.
We must prioritise the sustainable use of Artificial Intelligence in legal practice. At the most, AI can tell us ‘what the law is’ or ‘how it should be in the given circumstances’ based on the available resources and data. However, human intelligence can go beyond the available resources and data. This facet of human intelligence is incomprehensible and helps to evolve our society. The usage of AI should not be at the cost of human intelligence. It is high time to regulate the available AI tools in legal practice. Otherwise, in future, the law will be mechanical as the paralysed minds cannot go beyond what the law is!
Pravartak Suhas Pathak
Advocate-on-Record
Supreme Court of India, Delhi
pravartak@gmail.com
[1] What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Google, (Apr 13, 2025, 7am) https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-artificial-intelligence
[2] Tata Sky Ltd. v. National Internet Exchange of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7931
[3] Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 2587
[4] CBI v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1069
[5] Vaisakh v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 5515
[6] Nisha Rani v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 3144
[7] Madhu Tanwar vs. State of Punjab, P&H High Court, CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023
[8] Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486
[9] Akshay Tanna v. John Doe, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1444
[10] Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, (2024) 2 HCC (Del) 253
[11] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445
[12] Vijendra Singh Sikarwar v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5188
[13] Parimal Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 210
[14] The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services (Oxford University Press, 2010)
[15] N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., (2023) 7 SCC 1
[16] Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3213
[17] TPL – HGIEPL Joint Venture v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 721
[18] Ligue des droits humains v. Conseil des ministres, [2022] 1 WLR 4395
[19] Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3565