Introduction
In earlier times, students and legal professionals dedicated hours to library based legal research,flipping through pages to see which points were relevant and which were not.The digital era has now streamlined and accelerated this process,enabling time efficiency.The biggest question,though is whether is the on screen information accurate? Are the citation valid is our research material are relevant ? Nowdays,this question seems to be coming true,this incident took place within a U.S case in landmark case Mata v.Avianca,Inc. In this case the fact of the case are related with personal injury,in this case,the plantiff Robert marta,alleged an avianca airlines employee caused him a knee injury during an international flight.Robert marta filed a lawsuit against the airline,asserting that the injury he sustained falls under the scope of Monetral convention,a category for which the airline is liable for concerning passenger injuries.In avianca case – the airline argument was that marta claim fell outside the two year statute of limitations for monetral convention as the injury occurred long before the deadline.They argued the case should be dismiss immediately.The lawyer representing the Mata were Peter LoDuca and Steven Schwartz.The mata’s legal team used AI to research cases that would support their side against the opposing lawyer.They did’nt realize that AI would give them completely fake,non existent cases which they then submitted to the court without verifying them relaying entirely on AI would be a mistake,as it can’t always provide you with authentic information how could it fabricated a case and produce something incorrect? which does not exist.The primary issue here was whether a lawyer must verify the law completely,check it or if they can depend entirely on AI,now a second question arises-whether the production and submission of fake case or false by AI constitutes bad faith or professional misconduct in violation of professional ethics.The legal reasoning in this case was that AI can’t substitute human intellectual,it’s not that using AI is incorrect,but rather than lawyer has personally responsible for verifying the accuracy of their case submission befor filing them.The court indicated that if the lawyer citing precedents have faild to verify them relaying entirely on AI instead-they will be subject to sanctions under Rule 11 according to U.S Provisions,regardless of whether their actions were intentional or merely the result of an mistake.
Legislative law of Indian Percepetive
The evidence act from the colonial period is being by a new Bhartatiya Sakshya adhiniyam. section 65B concerning electronic record admissiability is now section 63 in the Bharatiya sakshya adhiniyam and its scope has been increased. Law student and Lawyer today need remember that any digital or data they submit in court must be legally valid. Earlier it was discussed in the evidence act in section 65B but now its scope has been widened.it now includes communication devices and semiconductor not just computers.
Section 63(2) outlines the admissiability requirement stating that any digital record submitted to the court must satisfy these four conditions-
(i) It is mentioned in section 63(2)(a) that computer from which data originated needed to be in regular for this work.
(ii) The second clause states that any information contained within an electronic record must be derived and fed into a computer in ordinary course.the simply means it wasn’t made just for court presentation.
(iii) And third clause indicates whether the computer or devices is operating correctly,if damaged,did it affect the accuracy of the output?
(iv) And the fourth clause provides that any information reproduced or derived in an electronic record from information previously entered into a computer must be result that input.
Section 63(3) describes that the definition of computer and it is understood that modern technology were considered when defining computer,whether-
(a) In stand alone mode.
(b) On computer system
(c) On computer network
(d) On computer resources enables the creation or providing of information for process and storage
(e) It goes through intermediary like Internet Service Provider,Telephonic Service provider.
The court will consider all computer and communication devices as one.
Section63(4) mandates that a certificate,this process will be somewhat complex because jusr showing the data won’t be nough you must provide a certificate. There are certain requirements for the certificate that must be followed-
Primarily,the electronic record must be identified and the method of production for any statements or descriptions within it must be disclosed.The second point highlight that the particular device from which electronic record originated need to be specified.The third point is that signature must come from the person who is in charge of the computer system and data management.
Fundamentallly section 63(5) specifically said that-That any output generated by a computer to be treated as computer. Secondly The pointing out that human intervention is no longer required:it is not necessary for every aspect to be under human control.It a computer has independently process and generated something it will be considered valid.The third point is that any output resulting from an official activity can be submitted as a valid evidence in court.
If Applicability of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam in Mata v. Avianca case
If the case of Mata v.avianca had occurred in India,the section 63(4) and 63(5) of the Bharatiya Sakshya adhiniyam apply According to section 63(4) of BSA,computer generated output,including AI research finding requires an accompanying certificate to be accepted as evidence by the court.According section 63(4)(c) If the court believes that the precedents cases a provided are flawed,it will require an expert opinion.They will demand a report from the individual operating the electronic device.
The challenges and Consequences relaying on AI in Case laws
In Gummadi Usha Rani case – The fact of the case is that a civil suit regarding a land or property dispute was ongoing in an Andhra Pradesh trial court.The court appointed a advocate commissioner and instructed and them to submit a report,after the advocate commissioner submitted his report the petitioner,did not get satisfaction,so they used section 151(power of Inherent court) of Civil Procedure of Code 1908,the trial court of the Judge ignored all of the petitioner’s obejctions and questions when delivering the verdict the judge stated that commisoner report correct and made a blunder while trying support his own Judgement,the trial court cited four precedent cases to support his decision,he used AI for research instead of doing it himself and didn’t bother to check if the cases actually existed.When this case came before the Andhra Pradesh high court under Article 227,the petitioner informed the court that trial court’s decision was based on precedent cases that didn’t actually exist.when the court checked this itself,it found that all the citations given by the court were created by AI,meaning they were “Halluciations”.The court took this seriously and considered it a worrying issue,stating that if the court’s basis isn’t correct,the seat of justice is in danger.
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the court has made it clear that a judge using fictious AI generated cases won’t be seen as a ordinary mistake but it will be a professional misconduct.As this is a case of misconduct,legal action should also be taken,The court believes that if fake judgements start being used like this,the entire justice process will show a lack of honesty and integrity.
Observation The court noted that this dispute is not only two parties,but impact the entire institution,the misuse of AI has a systematic threat,we shouldn’t overlook this as a minor fault.If the court had applied section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,the rule would be that an electronic record from which an AI generated case was produced cannot be evidence until a certificate is given.
In Jaswinder singh v.state of Punjab,this case related to the bail petition,and it was the first case of its kinds that opened a path for AI,The fact of this case is that in the year 2020,several individual assaulted a person with such gravity that he passed away,consequently,the accused,namely jaswinder singh,were charged with murder under the section 101 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita,Jaswinder singh has filed a bail petition in the Punjab and Harayan High court.When this case in front of Justice Anoop Chitkara,he had a legal dilemma:
Issue should bail granted to someone who attacked so brutally?and what are tha legal perspectives? the judge used “AI for this question and asked that what is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants assaulted with cruelty?” ChatGPT’s answer to this question was if the level of crime is high enough to clearly show cruelty,the judge often won’t grant bail as it would be a danger to society.
Held The judge made it clear here that ChatGPT was used for general information and not a the basis judgement itself,the Judge further observed here that the power to administer justice lies with a judicial mind not in a machine.
Comparsion between Gumaddi and Jaswinder case
Comparing these two cases,it is evident that the research in Gumaddi case,drawing on prior cases is a danger to the Judiciary.Conversely,in the jaswinder case,are merely gathering general information and using it for assistance.
The Necessary Verification
As stated above,section63(4) requires that an electronic record must have a certificate attached.Providing this certificated confirms that you accept the liability for the device in question.And this certificate will be signed by the individual responsible for this data.The issuance of certificate under section63(4) established a accountability.
The responsibility of a lawyer is not only to state the truth,but also to avoid misguiding the court.The BCI rules addresses using unfair menas,meaning when a lawyer choose a path that fundamentally undermines justice.Any lawyer who presents an verified fake cases in court,it would be considered an unfair means,equivalent to presenting a false or forged documents in court.BCI Rules no 4 outlines that a lawyer’s has duty not mislead to court.
The previously lawyer’s comptenece was based on the legal knowledge and advocacy skils,However the BIICL report suggest that in modern legal practice,technology competence is a part of this duty.If one uses the technology such as AI,it is that lawyer’s responsibility to understand both the risk and benefits.
There should be transparency between the lawyer and client.It is their responsibility to discuss with their client that they used AI in the case whenever they present in the court.This ensures the client can have total confidence in the lawyer. If the lawyer relies completely on AI for all their work,it breaks that trust and the duty of care.
Conclusion
Using AI in the legal field is correct,butit should need have some limits and verification.If we trust AI for everything,it will create hallucinations,meaning it won’t have any accountability or real existence.If that’s presented in court,the client could face many difficulties.It is essential for lawyers and students to have knowledge of both law and AI technology in the legal field.This ensures they can properly asses AI research,using its advantages and avoiding its disadvantages in court.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY SHUBHANGI SHUKLA, FROM UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW.
REFERENCE :
i Mata V.Avianca,Inc.,No.22-CV-1461(pkc),2023WL4111165(s.d.y.n.june,2023).
ii The Indian Evidence Act ,1872§65B.
iii The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023§63,NO 47 Acts Of Parliament,2023.
iv Id.,§63(2)(a).
v Id.,§63(2)(b).
vi Id.,§63(2)(c).
vii Id.,§63(2)(d).
viii Id.,§63(3).
ix Id.,§63(3)(a).
x Id.,§63(3),(b),(b),(d).
xi Id.,§63(3),(e).
xii Id.,§63(4).
xiii Id.§63(5).
xiv Id.,§63(4),(5).
xv Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao,(2026) SCC Online SC 341.
xvi Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab,(2023) SCC Online P&H2587.
xvii Id§63(4).
xviii Bar Council of India Rules,1975,Part VI,Chapter II,Rules 4.
xix Irene pietropaoliet al,Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal Practice,Brit.Inst.Int’I&Comp.L.(Biicl)9(2021).