Introduction
Artificial Intelligence has garnered significant attention in recent times, and its integration into various sectors continues to spark conversations. Recently, on September 23, 2204 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore issued a Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024 providing a comprehensive Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users (the "Guide").
The term 'Court User' has been defined in this Guide meaning any person who is involved in a Court.
This Guide outlines the key principles for the use of these tools in court proceedings and is applicable to all matters in the Supreme Court, with effect from October 01, 2024.
Applicability:
The Guide clarifies that it applies not only to the Supreme Court but also extends to the State Courts (including the Small Claims Tribunals, the Employment Claims Tribunals and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals) and the Family Justice Courts.
Permissibility of AI Tools
The Court does not prohibit the use of Generative AI tools for preparing court documents, provided the Court User comply with the guidelines as specified. The Guide emphasizes that AI is merely a tool, and its output should be used responsibly. It does not alter the duty of Court Users to adhere to relevant legislations, rules, codes of conduct or practice directions.
Responsibility for AI-Generated Content:
The Guide maintains a neutral stance on the use of generative AI but stresses that Court Users shall be fully accountable for any content produced using these tools. Unless specifically asked for by the court, pre-emptive declaration of the use of Generative AI is not required, as the responsibility for any resulting content ultimately rests with the Court User.
The Court User must carefully evaluate whether the output generated by the AI tool is suitable for their specific case before incorporating it into their legal documents. Furthermore, the Guide stipulates that while the use of Generative AI is permissible, the onus remains on the Court User to ensure that any content used in court documents is accurate, relevant and does not infringe on intellectual property rights (eg. copyright).
In addition, the Guide clarifies that these Generative AI tools should not be used to generate any evidence that you wish to rely upon in court. For instance, you cannot use Generative AI to ask for evidence to be created, fabricated, embellished, strengthened or diluted. Asking a Generative AI tool to generate a first-cut draft of an affidavit/statement can be done, provided that this Guide is complied with. But, it is not acceptable to ask a Generative AI tool to fabricate or temper with evidence.
It is crucial to note that the existing rules regarding producing case laws, legislation, textbooks, articles, inappropriate content in court documents shall remain unchanged. The Guide explicitly states that these standards continue to apply, and nothing in this new guidance will override these requirements.
In essence, while AI tools can aid in the preparation of court documents, the responsibility for their use lies squarely with the court users. This reinforces the principle that AI should assist rather than replace human judgment in legal proceedings.
Guide on how to Ensure Accuracy
To further safeguard the integrity of court documents, the Guide outlines some key steps which the Court User must follow to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of AI-Generated content. This includes the following:
- Fact-check and proof-read of any AI-generated content used;
- Edit and adapt AI-generated content to suit the specific case at hand;
- Verify that any references to case law, legislation, textbooks or article provided as AI-generated content actually exist and stand for the legal positions that are attributed to them. If the AI-generated content includes extracts or quotes, the Court User must verify that these are extracted/quoted accurately and attributed to the court source;
- When checking the materials, the Court User should use a source that is known to have accurate content;
- Shall not ask one Generative AI tool to confirm the content generated from another Generative AI tool;
- Be prepared to identify the specific portions of the court documents which used AI-generated content, and explain to the court how you have verified the output produced by a Generative AI tool.
- It is crucial to respect intellectual property rights in the court documents that the Court User file or submit. Proper source attribution is provided, where appropriate. This means that the Court User must include in the court document the original source of any material used or referred.
- Ensure that there is no unauthorized disclosure of confidential or sensitive information while using Generative AI tools. Must comply with confidentiality orders and laws, personal data protection laws, intellectual property laws and legal privilege when using Generative AI tools;
- Not to use the document for any purpose other than the court proceedings for which the court order was granted.
Declaration of AI Usage in Court Documents:
If the court has grounds to believe that Generative AI tool has been used in the preparation of court documents, the Court User may be required to:
- Inform the Court: Court User may be asked to disclose whether they used any Generative AI tools in preparing their documents. These tools, include but are not limited to, Generative AI Chatbots.
- Compliance Declaration: The Court User may be asked to explicitly declare that the documents submitted adhere to all relevant legal requirements as specified in the Guide.
- Filing an Affidavit: In certain cases, the Court User may be required to submit an affidavit, affirming the use of Generative AI tool and confirming that the content of the court documents is in full compliance with the prescribed guidelines.
Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Failure to comply with the regulations specified in this Guide may result in several repercussions, namely:
- Order of Costs: The court may impose penalties in the form of costs against the party/parties that fail to declare or comply with the AI usage guidelines.
- Disregard or Devalue Documents: If the court finds that a party has violated these requirements, it may disregard the affected document(s) or other material submitted to the court or give them less evidentiary weight. This could undermine the party's case and affect the outcome of the proceedings.
- Take disciplinary action against the Court User, if found to be a lawyer. This may affect their standing and reputation in the legal profession.
- Take the appropriate action in accordance with existing laws in respect of intellectual property rights, personal data protection, the protection of legal privilege and contempt of court.
Integration of AI in Indian judiciary
India has also been progressing toward a more structured legal framework for regulating AI. In the year 2023, the government of India enacted a new privacy law, Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) that not only aims to safeguard personal data of individuals but also draws its attention to privacy concerns relating to Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Since 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has stated to use the Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaada Software (SUVAS) which uses AI to translate legal papers from English into vernacular languages and vice versa. The Artificial Intelligence Committee was created by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to examine how AI is used in the legal system. It introduced the Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Courts Efficiency (SUPACE) that aims to provide digital infrastructure to help digitization of the court process. SUPACE is not designed to take decisions, but only to process facts and to make them available to judges.
The AI designed by TERES was used to translate court documents into text during live proceedings of the constituition bench hearing on the Maharashtra political controversy,
According to the PIB release dated August 09, 20241 the Ministry of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Law and Justice; and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliament Affairs, Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal, in a written reply in the Lok Sabha stated that
"The Supreme Court of India has adopted the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) language technology in translation of judicial documents as well as in legal research and process automation, etc. AI has also been deployed for transcribing oral arguments, particularly in Constitution bench matters since February 2023. A Committee headed by Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court of India has been constituted to monitor the translation of important Supreme Court and High Court judgments into vernacular languages."
In fact, in March 2023, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court became the first Indian court that sought the response of the AI tool chatbot, ChatGPT, to get a broader outlook of the bail jurisprudence across the world, while dealing with a bail plea, 2
However, with successful integration of AI do comes inevitable challenges. These challenges encompass biases, ethical and privacy concerns, lack of efficiency and accoutantibility, etc. To know more about them, kindly refer to our article titled "Role of AI in Legal Systems: A Detailed Analysis"3
Conclusion:
As AI technologies continues to evolve, the legal sector is gradually adapting to its potential benefits. The Supreme Court of Singapore's guidelines on the use of Generative AI tools underscore the importance of responsible usage. It is essential for legal professionals to remain vigilant and navigate this landscape with due diligence, ensuring that the integration of AI enhances, rather than compromises, the integrity of the legal process.
Footnotes
3. https://ssrana.in/articles/role-of-ai-in-legal-systems-a-detailed-analysis/
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
