Kerala High Court Bans Use Of AI Tools In Judicial Decision-Making
In a landmark move, the Kerala High Court has come out with an Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage policy which specifically prohibits usage of such tools for decision making or legal reasoning by the district judiciary.
The High Court has come out with the 'Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary' for a responsible and restricted use of AI in judicial functions of the district judiciary of the state in view of the increasing availability of and access to such software tools.
According to court sources, it is a first-of-its-kind policy.
It has advised the district judiciary to "exercise extreme caution" as "indiscriminate use of AI tools might result in negative consequences, including violation of privacy rights, data security risks and erosion of trust in the judicial decision making".
"The objectives are to ensure that AI tools are used only in a responsible manner, solely as an assistive tool, and strictly for specifically allowed purposes. The policy aims to ensure that under no circumstances AI tools are used as a substitute for decision making or legal reasoning," the policy document said.
The policy also aims to help members of the judiciary and staff to comply with their ethical and legal obligations, particularly in terms of ensuring human supervision, transparency, fairness, confidentiality and accountability at all stages of judicial decision making.
"Any violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action, and rules pertaining to disciplinary proceedings shall prevail," the policy document issued on July 19 said.
The new guidelines are applicable to members of the district judiciary in the state, the staff assisting them and also any interns or law clerks working with them in Kerala.
"The policy covers all kinds of AI tools, including, but not limited to, generative AI tools, and databases that use AI to provide access to diverse resources, including case laws and statutes," the document said.
Generative AI examples include ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Deepseek, it said.
It also said that the new guidelines apply to all circumstances wherein AI tools are used to perform or assist in the performance of judicial work, irrespective of location and time of use and whether they are used on personal, court-owned or third party devices.
The policy directs that usage of AI tools for official purposes adhere to the principles of transparency, fairness, accountability and protection of confidentiality, avoid use of cloud-based services -- except for the approved AI tools, meticulous verification of the results, including translations, generated by such software and all time human supervision of their usage.
"AI tools shall not be used to arrive at any findings, reliefs, order or judgement under any circumstances, as the responsibility for the content and integrity of the judicial order, judgement or any part thereof lies fully with the judges," it said.
It further directs that courts shall maintain a detailed audit of all instances wherein AI tools are used.
"The records in this regard shall include the tools used and the human verification process adopted," it said.
Participating in training programmes on the ethical, legal, technical and practical aspects of AI and reporting any errors or issues noticed in the output generated by any of the approved AI tools, are the other guidelines mentioned in the policy document.
The High Court has requested all District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates to communicate the policy document to all judicial officers and the staff members under their jurisdiction and take necessary steps to ensure its strict compliance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
Who is Shengjia Zhao? ChatGPT co-creator named Chief Scientist at Meta's Superintelligence Labs
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Friday announced that his company's new Superinteligence Labs has appointed ChatGPT co-creator Shenjia Zhao as the chief scientist. In the new role, Zhao will set the research agenda and the newly setup AI lab while also set the scientific direction and report directly to Meta Chief AI officer Alexandr Wang. Announcing the new appointment in a post on Threads, Zuckerberg wrote, 'Shengjia co-founded the new lab and has been our lead scientist from day one. Now that our recruiting is going well and our team is coming together, we have decided to formalize his leadership role.' 'Shengjia has already pioneered several breakthroughs including a new scaling paradigm and distinguished himself as a leader in the field. I'm looking forward to working closely with him to advance his scientific vision.' he added Ever since the dull reception received Meta's latest Llama model releases in April, Mark Zuckerberg has been working on getting the company back to the frontline of the highly contested AI race first with the $14 billion acquisition of Scale AI and later with the start of new organizaton called Meta Superintelligence Labs that has been wooing talent away from top AI companies like OpenAI, Google and even Apple. Zhao was among the dozen or so employees that left OpenAI for Meta in the past months. He is also the co-autor of the original ChatGPT research paper and was a key researcher on the first OpenAI reasoning model o1, according to a Bloomberg report. OpenAI's o1 model popularized the category of reasoning models and saw a bunch of other similar models with 'chain of thought' from Google, DeepSeek, xAI and more. According to a previous memo from Zuckerberg, Zhao handled synthetic data at OpenAI before coming to Meta. He also holds a bachelors degree from Tsinghua University and a PhD in Computer Science from Stanford University.
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Meta names ChatGPT co-creator as chief scientist of Superintelligence Lab
Meta Platforms has appointed Shengjia Zhao, co-creator of ChatGPT, as chief scientist of its Superintelligence Lab, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on Friday, as the company accelerates its push into advanced AI. 'In this role, Shengjia will set the research agenda and scientific direction for our new lab working directly with me and Alex,' Zuckerberg wrote in a Threads post, referring to Meta's Chief AI Officer Alexandr Wang, who Zuckerberg hired from startup Scale AI when Meta took a big stake in it. Zhao, a former research scientist at OpenAI, co-created ChatGPT, GPT-4 and several of OpenAI's mini models, including 4.1 and o3. He is among several researchers who have moved from OpenAI to Meta in recent weeks, part of a broader talent arms race as Zuckerberg aggressively hires from rivals to close the gap in advanced AI. Meta has been offering some of Silicon Valley's most lucrative pay packages and striking startup deals to attract top researchers, a strategy that follows the underwhelming performance of its Llama 4 model. Meta launched the Superintelligence Lab recently to consolidate work on its Llama models and long-term artificial general intelligence ambitions. Zhao is a co-founder of the lab, according to the Threads post, which operates separately from FAIR, Meta's established AI research division led by deep learning pioneer Yann LeCun. Zuckerberg has said Meta aims to build 'full general intelligence' and release its work as open source — a strategy that has drawn both praise and concern within the AI community.
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Soldier's death by fellow soldier qualifies as ‘battle casualty', rules Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order granting liberalised family pension to Rukmani Devi, the mother of a soldier who died over three decades ago during Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir. The court dismissed a writ petition by the Union of India challenging the AFT's February 22, 2022, ruling, holding that the soldier's death from friendly fire during an operational deployment qualifies as a 'battle casualty' under the Ministry of Defence's guidelines. Delivering the order on July 16, a division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda said: 'It is manifest that a soldier deployed in a military operation, being shot by a fellow soldier, cannot be in any manner denied the benefits, which would be applicable to those soldiers who are killed in action.' The case arose from the death of Rukmani Devi's son, an Indian Army jawan, who was on duty with Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir when he suffered a fatal gunshot injury on October 21, 1991, fired by another soldier. Army Air Defence Records, through Part-II Order No. 01/BC/05/002 dated August 27, 1992, had categorised his death as a 'battle casualty.' However, the claim for liberalised family pension remained unresolved for decades. In 2018, Rukmani Devi approached the AFT seeking relief. The tribunal directed the government to consider her claim, relying on its own 2017 decision in the case of Harvinder Kaur vs Union of India, where a similar claim was allowed for a widow whose husband had died during Operation Parakram. The Union government appealed, arguing that the cases were not comparable, as Harvinder Kaur's husband had died while the operation was ongoing, whereas Devi's son was killed in 1991. The Centre also objected to the long delay of over 25 years in approaching the tribunal. However, the High Court rejected both arguments. Citing instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence in January 2001, the bench said the benefit of liberalised family pension extends to all armed forces personnel deployed in notified military operations, including those killed by 'acts of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements etc' or in other war-like situations. The court reproduced the government's pension categories, noting that the soldier's death fell squarely within Category E of Paragraph 4.1, which covers operational casualties. On the issue of delay, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in M.L. Patil vs State of Goa, which held that pension entitlements constitute a 'continuous cause of action.' 'There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension…,' the Supreme Court had ruled, and the High Court applied the principle to Devi's case. The bench pointed out that the AFT's 2017 ruling in Harvinder Kaur's case has attained finality, strengthening the claim of similarly placed families. The High Court concluded: 'We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.' With the dismissal of the Union government's petition, the AFT's order stands, ensuring that Rukmani Devi receives the liberalised family pension due to her for her son's death in service.
