VIJAYAWADA: The High Court has made it clear that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is only a tool for assisting information gathering and cannot replace human intelligence or judicial reasoning, cautioning the subordinate judiciary against its uncritical use while delivering judgments.
Emphasising that judges must always accord primacy to human intellect over AI-generated inputs, the court directed lower courts to exercise utmost caution while using AI tools for judicial work.
It clarified that information generated by AI should not be accepted at face value and that judicial decisions must rest strictly on established legal principles and independent application of mind, not merely on AI-based inputs.
Judges using AI for legal research must verify the accuracy and relevance of the material cited.
Justice Ravinath Tilahari made these observations while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) arising from a criminal revision petition in a civil dispute, in which one Gummadi Usharani and another petitioner sought to set aside an Advocate Commissioner’s report before a Vijayawada court.
During the hearing, counsel said four judgments cited by the trial court were nonexistent and untraceable. Justice Tilahari sought a report, in which the judicial officer admitted using AI tools but said the legal principle was correctly applied. Finding no error, the High Court declined interference.
After examining the report, the High Court observed that the judicial officer had acted correctly in applying the legal principle and held that no interference was warranted. Accordingly, the court dismissed the CRP challenging the lower court’s order.
In his judgment, Justice Ravinath Tilahari expressed serious concern over the risks involved in relying on AI tools. He observed that AI may not have complete access to all relevant laws, may fail to correctly understand the true import of a query, or may ignore important and binding precedents.
“While AI tools may appear to provide convincing and effective answers, there is a real risk that such responses may be factually or legally incorrect. In some cases, AI may even generate judgments that do not exist or wrongly apply judgments that are unrelated to the issue at hand. This is a matter of grave concern,” the judge noted, adding that indiscriminate use of AI, despite its advantages, could lead to serious problems.
The court further observed that excessive reliance on AI could compromise privacy and erode public confidence in the judicial system.
“Judges, too, would be compelled to devote valuable time to verify the correctness of AI-generated citations, resulting in delays in the delivery of justice,” he maintained.
Agreeing with the application of the correct legal principle by the trial court, Justice Tilahari finally dismissed the revision petition filed by Usharani and the other petitioner and cautioned all judicial officers to be careful while using AI tools.