Artifical Intelligence: The New Kid On The Block!

The Introduction:

“I’m simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.”

The character of Dr. Ian Malcolm in the 1993 movie titled, “Jurassic Park”, perhaps put it most succinctly when he spoke about the adaptability of life. Change is constant, and like any other living organism, humans are remarkably proficient at adapting to their ever-changing surroundings.

That may well be true when viewed from a distance, from the proverbial bird’s eye perspective; however, zoom in a little closer, the real bumps and cracks begin to show.

As humans, while we may be accustomed to change, we are not necessarily comfortable with it. Even the smallest change can sometimes feel like a huge inconvenience. When we look at the evolution of the human race over the past millennia, it is easy to appreciate the sheer scale of the change and marvel at the resilience with which humans have adapted. What is perhaps less visible, however, is the struggle of the everyday – the fact that we are constantly being barraged with something new, something unfamiliar and something that requires us to adapt all over again.

Today, it is Artificial Intelligence (AI). Yesterday, it was smartphones; before that, mobile-phones and laptops; before those, computers; and before that, commercial aviation. Go back further, and we find cars, tanks, aircrafts, bombs – the list is, quite literally, endless.

And therein lies the irony. Tomorrow, by the time we finally get comfortable with AI, there will likely be something else entirely demanding our attention, raising new questions and, perhaps, making us uncomfortable yet again.

AI, therefore, is simply the new kid on the block, trying to settle in, make friends and convince us that it belongs – until the next new kid shows up and becomes the hot topic and flavour of the month.

The Hypothesis:

When viewed from this perspective, in my opinion, the real challenge is not that we are incapable of adapting to change. We clearly are. The challenge is that we are expected to do it, repeatedly, and at an ever-increasing pace.

Further, the question no longer remains on whether AI is good for us or not. Rather, the better question is how well and how fast can humans assimilate and embrace AI.

The Current Conundrum:

The first order of business is to identify the main problem(s).

A. Hallucinations

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of ‘Pooja Ramesh Singh vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited & Anr.’ (2026 INSC 668), the Court set aside orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after noting that the NCLT had relied upon non-existent and AI-hallucinated case-law precedents. To make matters worse, the reliance upon such case-law was overlooked by the NCLAT as well.

The incident of hallucinated case law is just one of many instances demonstrating the unreliability of AI in its current form, and that too without due application of mind. And therein lies the real problem.

What must not be forgotten is that AI is essentially governed by its original programming and algorithm. While AI is designed to learn and evolve, it presently lacks sentient existence (thankfully) – thereby limiting its output. This limitation often results in unverified information being presented to the reader, simply because the same is available on the internet.

Carefully thought-out prompts and engagement through feedback are certainly ways to minimise hallucinations. However, without a reasonable level of oversight, constant filtration, sieving and, most importantly, verification, the instances of hallucination will continue the plague the usage of AI, and count negatively towards its credibility.  

B. Indiscriminate usage to avoid hard-work

Another issue of concern, which perhaps is more common than AI’s hallucinogenic vices, is its indiscriminate usage.

As a law practitioner with over 16 years in the practice, I am now in a position to be a mentor and organisational senior, especially to the freshly graduating and newly appointed associates in the profession. A far too common trend that I have seen emerge is the unadulterated, unreviewed and indiscriminate use of AI in first drafts.

Allow me to give you some context – drafting is the heart and soul of law, followed closely by the art of advocacy through court craft. The written word is what makes or breaks a case across all areas of the profession. In fact, the art of advocacy through court craft, however much creative, can also be limited by the four corners of the written word, or the lack thereof.

With drafting being the essence of law, originality coupled with well-reasoned and well-researched points are the logical corollaries.

AI is being increasingly used to churn out first drafts, which feel largely similar, lacking originality and often with misplaced reasoning and outcomes. I am not sure how effective such indiscriminate use of AI is in other industries – however, as far as the profession of law is concerned, there is much left to be desired in the use of AI for drafts.

What makes matters worse, beyond the repetitions and monotony, is the complete abandonment of review in the drafts so produced. AI-generated drafts often have been found to include facts well beyond the prompts and documents supplied as base. And these unchecked additional facts are presented over with an air of casualness, which hardly is deserving of this profession.

 The Logical Step Forward

Now that we have identified the problems, the next step would be to figure out the way forward.

When I joined the profession, case-law research software such as Manupatra, Indian Kanoon, SCC Online and DLT Online had already begun to be in use in most offices. However, since most of such software were still in their nascent stages of operation, incidents of typographical errors, omission of sentences and paragraphs, and jumbling up of text were still quite rampant. As freshers in the profession, we were promptly dressed down by our seniors and judges for not carrying “books” or “commentaries”, which were the real authorities for any sort of reliance.

As a rule of thumb, soon enough, we were hard-wired to cross check every case-law find, and duly verify not just their existence but also their content, threadbare.

16 years in, and after a whole lot of improvement in the authenticity of those research software, they have become an indispensable part of the profession – replacing hardbound case-law books and commentaries. Digitisation and saving paper have become the norm.

“You kids do not know the hardwork required which involves sitting down with a commentary to understand the law and find a case law. Your reliance on these computer programs has led to your generation failing to develop grit through perseverance”.

Those were words my generation heard often. However, instead of rejecting the research software, what was employed was a different kind of hard work, leading to the software being improved substantially, raising their standards and transforming them into acceptable authorities.

As I look at the introduction of AI in the profession, I cannot help but equate it with the research software I grew up with in the profession.

So, to my mind, the answer lies not in the rejection of AI; rather, first in the acceptance of it, and then in the moulding of it.

While we wait for improvements in the algorithms and software coding, here is my proposal:

• Frame methodology on the use of AI within every profession – including role-based access to AI. Organisations may also consider collaborating with AI developers to cater to their specific needs. In fact, the Supreme Court of India is already contemplating such a move.
• Train people on how to use AI and how to review the output generated by AI.
• Inculcate a culture of cross-checking and verification. Avoiding blind reproduction is crucial.
• Encourage originality and ownership – reward it even, to minimise the dependency on AI.
• Invest towards institutional accountability – to ensure hallucinated outcomes are identified and rejected in a timely manner.
• Improve data security while using AI software, ensuring confidentiality is maintained wherever necessary, supplemented with robust legal framework to counter any unauthorised access to data. The enactment of the Information Technology Act 2000 was step one towards handling the digital revolution. Step two would be to handle AI.
• Update existing Intellectual Property law framework to protect original work against usage by AI.

It is important for us to let AI facilitate our professional lives, rather than replace our cognitive abilities.

There is certainly no parallel or equivalent to the art that lies in originality. The whole reason why we become lawyers in the first place, at least on some level, though to varying degree, is to develop the ability to “sell ice in the middle of winter, and that too at a profit”.

That said, we are also inching closer to original works produced by AI, for which we will have equip ourselves, in terms of the law, to consider questions of infringement from a whole new perspective. In fact, in a case titled ‘Stephen Thaler vs. Union of India’, before the Delhi High Court, concerning an autonomously generated artwork by AI titled, "A Recent Entrance to Paradise", the Court was faced with the question of copyright in the artwork generated by AI.

In the context of such a foreseeable future, we must be ready to remould ourselves accordingly.

The Key Takeaway

We cannot and ought not to envisage a future without AI.

It is time to celebrate the glass half full, whilst working meticulously to fill the other half. We do not need to shun AI; rather we must find ways to embrace it the right way.

The pros of AI are aplenty. A junior resource is no longer required to engage in drudgery, which added no value and resulted only in the wastage of human hours, which could have been productively utilised elsewhere.

We must also not seek to replace freshers with AI; rather find better ways to train and mentor them, without expecting them to walk the same mile we did.

We must adapt to the changing times, like we always do, with open minds. Resistance to this evolutionary change would only be counter-productive, delaying the inevitable. It is as the Borg, in Star Trek, say, “resistance is futile”.

I look forward to supplementing my work, wherever possible, with AI, and future innovations. Yet, at the same time, I also look forward to ensuring that my originality, reasoning power and ability to deduce remain sharp as ever, making me not just a good lawyer, but a dynamic and modern one at that.

The Relevant Disclaimer

As I conclude, I must disclose that not only the thoughts, but the words in this article are my own. This article is heavily inspired by my background, as an 80s born Xennial-Millennial.

There was no use of AI in the drafting of this article, and restricted only to facilitate research (I wanted to be original, not ancient). I have also endeavoured to ensure that no AI was harmed or offended in the drafting process, to hopefully ensure I survive judgement day, with no T-1000 on my tail.

The article should, therefore, withstand the test of any plagiarism and AI detection tool, save and except the dialogue plucked from crustacean cinema, and references to Terminator and Trekkie trivia, as well as direct references to any provision of law, whether in force, or repealed, or any case-law precedent.

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.