Justice Rajesh Bindal flags use of AI search models, leading to 'fake judgements'
"Sometimes lawyers search on AI using one or two keywords and they cite judgments... it may be incorrect, it may have been the minority opinion..but they don't know that..there have been instances of the AI created it's own fake judgments and opinions which get presented before Court," said Justice Bindal."This is the danger mark of AI that it generates fake judgments and information. Senior lawyers need to groom the Young Bar about these dangers," said the SC judge."It was said we judges do a lot of work, but the core behind it is the research done by the young lawyers and the arguments made by the Senior counsels," said Bindal.Justice Bindal was speaking at the felicitation ceremony organised by the All India Senior Advocates Association for the four new Judges elevated to the Supreme Court in the last month- Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Nilay V Anjaria, Justice Vijay Boshnoi and Justice Atul S Chandurkar. Justices Bindal and PB Varale were the "senior" members of the Bench attending the event.Senior Advocate and MP P Wilson, Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala and Senior advocate Pitambari Acharya shared the dais with the judges.Speaking at the event, Senior Advocate and Parliamentarian P Wilson told the gathering that he had introduced a Private Members Bill to increase the retirement age of Judges before the Parliament.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Prior nod of court needed for filing lawsuit by public beneficiaries in citizens' interest: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday said a prior nod from court was needed to file a lawsuit under the provision dealing with public charities of the Civil Procedure Code as the action was launched on behalf of public beneficiaries and that too in public interest. Prior nod of court needed for filing lawsuit by public beneficiaries in citizens' interest: SC The top court issued directions on the legal issues and dismissed an appeal filed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which challenged the maintainability of a suit against it under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Section 92 of the CPC deals with lawsuits relating to public charitable or religious trusts and permits legal action to be taken in cases of alleged breaches of trust, or when the court's direction is needed for the trust's administration. 'A suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a representative suit of a special nature since the action is instituted on behalf of the public beneficiaries and in public interest. Obtaining a 'grant of leave' from the court before the suit can be proceeded with, acts as a procedural and legislative safeguard in order to prevent public trusts from being subjected to undue harassment through frivolous suits being filed against them and also to obviate a situation that would cause a further wastage of resources which can otherwise be put towards public charitable or religious aims,' a bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said. Writing 168-page, Justice Pardiwala, however, pointed out at the stage of grant of leave, the court neither adjudicates upon the merits of the dispute nor confers any substantive rights upon the parties. 'A trust can be said to have been created for a 'public purpose' when the beneficiaries are the general public who are incapable of exact ascertainment. Even if the beneficiaries are not necessarily the public at large, they must at least be a classified section of it and not a pre-ascertained group of specific individuals,' it said. The special nature of the suit under Section 92 requires it to be filed fundamentally on behalf of the public for the vindication of public rights, it said. 'Therefore, courts must go beyond the reliefs and also give due regard to the object and purpose for which the suit is brought. The true nature of the suit must be determined on a comprehensive understanding of the facts of the matter and a hard-and-fast rule cannot be made for the same,' it said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC strikes down Centre's EIA waiver for educational constructions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the Centre's notification that had exempted educational buildings from obtaining prior environmental clearance. A Bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran struck down a part of the Centre's 29 January 2025 notification that had exempted construction projects related to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels from obtaining prior environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. EIA is a process used to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of a proposed project or development before it is undertaken. The Bench said the exemption was arbitrary and contrary to the purpose of the Environment Protection Act. The rest of the notification was upheld. 'We see no reason behind the exemption of the 2006 notification for the industry and educational buildings. If any construction activity in an area of more than 20,000 sq m (square metres) is carried out, it will naturally have an effect on the environment, even if the building is for educational purpose. We see no reason to discriminate the other buildings with the buildings constructed for industrial or educational purposes. It is common knowledge that education is no more a merely service-oriented profession. It is common knowledge that education has nowadays also become a flourishing industry,' the apex court observed. The Court had earlier stayed the operation of the notification in a public interest litigation filed by the non-government organisation Vanashakti. The stay had also applied to an Office Memorandum dated 30 January 2025, which had clarified that the amended notification would also apply to Kerala. Under the EIA, any building or construction project with a built-up area equal to or greater than 20,000 sq m requires prior environmental clearance. The challenged notification had amended Clause 8 of the schedule to the 2006 EIA Notification and introduced Note 1 to Clause 8(a). The amendment stated that projects such as industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational institutions would not require prior environmental clearance if measures such as sustainable environmental management, solid and liquid waste management, and rainwater harvesting were put in place. The apex court, in its judgment, observed that development must be balanced with environmental protection. 'A country cannot progress unless development takes place. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has adopted the principle of sustainable development,' it said. The Court also rejected the Centre's argument that guidelines exist to ensure such projects would follow environmental safeguards. 'We are of the view that the exemption of applicability of the 2006 notification to the projects and activities qua industrial sheds, schools, colleges, hostels, and educational institutions does not appear to be in tune with the purpose of the Environment Protection Act,' the Court observed. The Court was hearing a petition filed by Vanashakti challenging both the 29 January 2025 notification and the subsequent Office Memorandum. Vanashakti had argued that the government was trying to dilute the EIA regime for building and construction projects, after making similar efforts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 that were stayed or quashed by courts.
Business Standard
22 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea challenging declaration of ISIS as terrorist organisation
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition challenging two government notifications declaring the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and associated ideological expressions as terrorist organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan. Petitioner alleged wrongful arrest The petitioner claimed that he and his son were wrongfully arrested for alleged links to ISIS. The bench, however, noted that these grievances could only be addressed through appropriate proceedings before the competent criminal court. The court also clarified that it was not inclined to entertain a blanket challenge to the government notifications dated February 2015 and June 2018, issued under Section 35 of the UAPA. Amicus curiae, senior advocate Mukta Gupta, submitted that the two notifications violated the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution by misinterpreting religious terms such as 'caliphate' and 'jihad', equating them with terrorism. She argued that the declarations lacked supporting material or adherence to any procedure akin to that prescribed for declaring 'unlawful associations' under Section 3 of the UAPA. 'He says the word 'caliphate' is wrongly interpreted. That violates his fundamental right of religion. He has given substantial portions indicating what, according to the Quran, is the meaning of caliphate and jihad,' Gupta submitted. However, the bench rejected this argument, stating that such terms must be interpreted in the context of the alleged terrorist activity and not purely from a religious or scriptural standpoint. 'When the notification used the word 'caliphate', it is in relation to terrorist activity. So it has to be read in that context,' Justice Bagchi observed. No mechanism to review terrorist declarations under Section 35 Gupta further highlighted that while the UAPA provides for a tribunal to review the banning of unlawful associations, there is no equivalent review mechanism under Section 35, which governs the designation of terrorist organisations. She also informed the court that the petitioner had been arrested after filing the writ petition, and that his son had previously been detained by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on similar allegations. In response, Justice Surya Kant noted that the petitioner could pursue bail or other legal remedies through the appropriate criminal forum. 'He can always avail his remedy before the appropriate forum,' he said. Plea not a constitutional challenge The bench concluded that the petition appeared to be an attempt to secure relief in ongoing individual criminal proceedings, rather than a genuine constitutional challenge to the notifications. 'It seems to us that instead of a challenge to the impugned notifications, the remedy for the petitioner and his son lies in approaching the appropriate forum,' the court said in its order, while disposing of the petition.
