Supreme Court judge Justice B R Gavai, next in line to be the CJI, has flagged the circulation of edited hearing clips on social media to sensationalise legal proceedings and said the judiciary might have to formulate guidelines over live-streaming of courts.
Speaking at an event in Kenya, Justice Gavai said, clips of the court proceedings were edited without context and shared on social media platforms.
He was speaking on: Leveraging on Technology within the Judiciary.
“I would highlight another concern from the Indian experience. Short clips from court hearings are often circulated on social media, sometimes in a way that sensationalises the proceedings. These clips, when taken out of context, can lead to misinformation, misinterpretation of judicial discussions, and inaccurate reporting.” He pointed out several content creators, including YouTubers, re-uploaded short excerpts from the hearing as their own content, raising concerns over intellectual property rights and ownership of judicial recordings.
“The unauthorised use and potential monetisation of such content blur the lines between public access and ethical broadcasting,” Justice Gavai added.
The judge said managing such challenges was an emerging issue for the judiciary and courts might have to establish guidelines on the usage of live-streamed proceedings.
Striking a balance between transparency, public awareness, and the responsible use of court content will be critical in addressing these ethical concerns, he added.
While technology has significantly improved access to judicial proceedings, it has also given rise to several ethical concerns, the judge said.
Courts across the world, Justice Gavai said, have increasingly integrated technology to improve efficiency, enhance decision-making, and promote access to justice.
“The increasing reliance on technology in the judiciary has emerged as a response to longstanding institutional challenges, such as case backlogs and procedural inefficiencies, while also serving as a means to strengthen and modernise existing systems for improved functionality. Solutions based on artificial intelligence are transforming various aspects of the judiciary,” he said.
The judge underlined the significant risks surrounding the use of AI in legal research referring to instances where a platform like ChatGPT generated “fake case citations and fabricated legal facts”.
He said, “While AI can process vast amounts of legal data and provide quick summaries, it lacks the ability to verify sources with human-level discernment. This has led to situations where lawyers and researchers, trusting AI-generated information, have unknowingly cited non-existent cases or misleading legal precedents, resulting in professional embarrassment and potential legal consequences.” AI was also being used to predict court outcomes, triggering debates on its role in judicial decision-making, said Justice Gavai.
“This raises fundamental questions about the very nature of justice. Can a machine, lacking human emotions and moral reasoning, truly grasp the complexities and nuances of legal disputes?” the judge asked.
Referring to human emotions of ethical considerations, empathy, and contextual understanding, he said the elements were beyond the reach of algorithms.
The integration of AI in the judiciary, therefore, must be approached with caution, ensuring that technology serves as an aid rather than a replacement for human judgment, Justice Gavai added.
The judge said technology had revolutionised case management by replacing traditional paper-based records with digital systems that allow real-time tracking of cases, automated scheduling of hearings, and seamless document retrieval.
“AI-powered scheduling tools have been integrated into case management systems to allocate court dates intelligently, balancing the workload of judges and ensuring optimal use of court resources. Many courts worldwide have adopted automated case scheduling systems, which assign cases to judges based on workload and specialisation,” he said.
The Indian judiciary, he said, embraced hybrid video-conferencing for court proceedings, marking a significant shift toward greater accessibility and efficiency in the justice system.
“Lawyers from any part of the country can now log in and present their arguments before the courts, eliminating geographical barriers and reducing the logistical challenges associated with in-person appearances,” the judge added.
Justice Gavai said traditionally, lawyers and litigants undertook extensive travels, often at great expenses, to appear before higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court and high courts.
“This posed a significant challenge for those residing in remote areas, smaller towns, or economically weaker sections. With video-conferencing advocates can now present their cases from anywhere in the country, ensuring that quality legal representation is not limited to those who can afford to travel to capital cities,” he said.
The change particularly benefited junior lawyers aside from the ones practising in the subordinate judiciary, Justice Gavai added.
According to the judge, the Supreme Court initiating live-streaming of constitutional cases has been a big leap toward enhancing accessibility and ensuring broader access to justice courtesy transcription of proceedings and translation of judgments from English into other regional languages.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
