AI can be used as tool in judiciary, adjudication cannot be outsourced: Justice Prathiba M Singh

The process of judging a dispute and advocacy can never be outsourced to Artificial Intelligence (AI), Delhi High Court judge Justice Prathiba M Singh said on Saturday..Justice Singh opined that while AI can be used as a tool by judiciary and the bar, it cannot be used to adjudicate disputes. “Would I be comfortable putting in facts of a case and getting a judgement from AI? No. I don’t think our judging and advocacy can be outsourced at all," she stated. She was speaking at the International Bar Association’s (IBA) litigation and Alternate Dispute Resolution symposium on the topic ‘Emerging trends in intellectual property (IP) disputes in Asia.’She began her address by highlighting the significant developments in intellectual property field over the last few years. The central government has been providing good direction to IP through its policies, she said."I think India is doing pretty well on IP policy space. There is an organic growth of startups and innovations.” On the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Justice Singh said, “We did have a jolt during the COVID time when IPAB was abolished. We were very lucky that we were able to pull it out of a crisis situation and turn it into an opportunity.” She highlighted that the IP divisions of Madras and Calcutta High Court have performed really well since their establishment and have delivered good judgments.“It is just a matter of time before an IP division is established in Bombay High Court,” she added.On use of technology for transcribing court proceedings in IP cases, Justice Singh said that it has been an effectively tool, especially when it comes to recording evidence and has helped her adjudicate cases in a speedier manner.Hence, transcription can reduce the time taken to conclude criminal trials, she noted.However, the cost of acquiring the software for transcriptions can be expensive, and in IP cases, the parties could mutually agree to bear the cost of transcription, Justice Singh opined.But since transcription would enable courts to decide disputes sooner, it can end up saving costs for litigating parties. Justice Singh further suggested that lawyers fix time slots for arguments and finish them within the slot. Justice Singh’s speech was followed by a discussion on the same topic moderated by Pravin Anand, Managing Partner at Anand & Anand and Padmanabha Ramanujam, Dean of Academic Governance at Jindal Global Law University.The panelists included Shwetasree Majumder (Managing Partner at Fidus Law Chambers) Ameet Naik (Managing Partner at Naik Naik & Co) and Saikrishna Rajagopal (Managing Partner, Saikrishna & Associates)..Responding to Justice Singh’s suggestion that lawyers finish arguments within fixed time slots, Pravin Anand said, “Time slots are there in the rules, but they are not followed. Since they are there in the rules, judges have to put their foot down.” .Majumder highlighted how different jurisdictions have handled requests for copyrights for artistic work by a human with the help of AI. She cited examples from the US and China. .Saikrishna Rajagopal spoke about Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and the litigation trends in relation to SEP. SEP is a patent that claims technology essential to a standard set by a recognized standards organization. These patents are crucial because they ensure the interoperability and compatibility of products within specific industries, such as telecommunications, computing, and consumer electronics. For instance, technologies used in mobile phones have SEPs as certain amount of common hardware is used across all models of mobile phones. .Ameet Naik's address dealt with personality rights. In the recent past, the Delhi High Court has protected the personality rights of various celebrities such as Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff. Naik spoke about how a celebrity’s livelihood is dependent on their personality and likeness.