Courts Crack Down on AI Misuse in Legal Work, Demand Human Accountability

AI tools are being rapidly adopted by legal practitioners for drafting petitions, summarising case laws and conducting research due to their ability to process large volumes of information quickly. However, recent judicial observations indicate that unchecked use may undermine the integrity of legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court has taken note of the growing reliance on AI by lawyers and flagged instances where petitions contained incorrect or fabricated citations generated by such tools. Courts have termed such lapses as misconduct, stressing that accountability ultimately rests with the advocate.

Several High Courts have also moved to regulate AI usage. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has cautioned judicial officers against using AI for writing judgments or conducting legal research. The Gujarat High Court has restricted its use in judicial decision-making, allowing it only for limited administrative purposes.

In another development, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) relied on an AI-generated overview of local property prices while directing a developer to pay enhanced compensation to a homebuyer.

Legal experts have emphasised the need for a balanced approach. Sanjeev K Kapoor, Senior Partner at Khaitan & Co, said, "The concern is not with AI per se, but with its indiscriminate and unverified use. There is nothing inherently unethical about using AI to generate a first draft of a petition or to assist with research--provided the lawyer exercises independent judgment and rigorously verifies the output before relying on it. Ultimately, the duty remains unchanged: lawyers must apply their minds and must verify every word and citation submitted to the court. AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional responsibility."

CV Raghu, President and Founding Member of the General Counsel's Association of India, said, "AI is a powerful ally for efficiency, but it lacks the ethical compass and critical judgment essential to the practice of law. While we embrace innovation, the ultimate accountability for every citation and argument must remain firmly with the human advocate to ensure the integrity of our justice system."

Industry voices echoed similar concerns. Jagdish Mitra, Founder and CEO of Humanizetech.ai, said, "Use of AI needs to move beyond being passive assistants to autonomous agents that drive real-world outcomes. In critical fields like legal, this is not just about automation, but augmented accountability, where the speed and precision of AI are guided by context, judgment and human acumen in doing the right and fair thing."

As adoption grows, experts stressed that AI must remain a supervised tool, with strong human oversight to ensure that technological convenience does not come at the cost of justice and due process.

- ANI