Last Updated:
CJI BR Gavai warned of AI misuse targeting judges, citing morphed images and fake case laws. The Supreme Court will hear Kartikeya Rawal’s PIL on GenAI regulation in two weeks.
The CJI, who is on a four-day official visit to Bhutan, was speaking at the Royal Institute of Management on ‘Courts and Constitutional Governance’ as part of the Fifth Wisdom for Future Talk Series hosted by JSW School of Law. File pic/PTI
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on Monday raised serious concerns over the growing misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other digital tools against members of the judiciary. The CJI revealed that even judges have been targeted with morphed images circulating online, underlining the urgent need for regulations to curb such misuse.
– “Yes, yes, we have seen our morphed pictures too,” the Chief Justice said while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions for framing guidelines or a policy to regulate the use of Generative AI (GenAI) in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
According to the petition filed by advocate Kartikeya Rawal, there is a clear distinction between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI).
The plea argued that unlike traditional AI, GenAI can produce entirely new data and even fabricate non-existent case laws, potentially creating confusion within the legal system. It further cautioned that GenAI could replicate and amplify existing biases, discrimination, and stereotypes, thereby posing serious ethical and legal concerns.
“The characteristic of GenAI being a black box and having opaqueness has the possibility of creating an ambiguity in the legal system followed in India. In other words, the skill of GenAI to leverage advanced neural networks and unsupervised learning to generate new data, uncover hidden patterns, and automate complex processes can lead to ‘hallucinations’, resulting in fake case laws, AI bias, and lengthy observations. This process of hallucinations would mean that the GenAI would not be based on precedents but on a law that might not even exist. Such arbitrariness is a clear violation of Article 14,” it claimed.
The plea added that the “quality of data directly impacts the outcome of GenAI in terms of bias”.
The petitioner argued that any AI system integrated into the judiciary or its functions must rely on unbiased data, with clear and transparent data ownership to ensure accountability among all stakeholders.
The bench, comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, adjourned the matter. It will be heard after two weeks.
November 10, 2025, 16:08 IST
Read More
