Delhi High Court Denies Artificial Intelligence’s Role in Adjudication Process
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has emphasized that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot replace human intelligence or the humane element in the process of adjudication. The court made this decision during an appeal against Shutiq, a partnership firm involved in the production and sale of shoes. The appeal was filed by Christian Louboutin SAS, a renowned French luxury shoemaker.
Christian Louboutin accused Shutiq of manufacturing knockoff versions of their luxury shoe line, for which the former held a registered trademark for the design and had established goodwill in other designs. To support their claim, Christian Louboutin presented a response generated by ChatGPT, a large language model-based chatbot.
However, the court dismissed the use of ChatGPT as a basis for adjudicating legal or factual issues. The court stated that the response generated by AI chatbots like ChatGPT is influenced by various factors, including the nature and structure of the user’s query. It further highlighted the potential for incorrect responses, fictional case laws, and imaginative data generated by AI systems. The court concluded that the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated data remain uncertain.
Eventually, after comparing the shoes in question, the court ruled in favor of the French shoemaker. Nevertheless, it cautioned that, considering the current stage of technological development regarding AI chatbots, they can primarily be used for preliminary research purposes and nothing more.
This ruling raises important questions about the extent to which AI can be relied upon in legal proceedings. While AI systems like ChatGPT have the potential to assist in legal research, the decision-making process should ultimately be entrusted to human intelligence, ensuring a balance between the advantages of AI and the inherent qualities of human judgment.
The court’s ruling serves as a reminder that, despite advancements in technology, human involvement remains crucial in preserving the integrity and fairness of the adjudicatory process. AI chatbots may provide valuable tools for preliminary research, but their limitations and potential inaccuracies underscore the necessity of human intervention to ensure accurate and reliable legal outcomes.
As AI continues to evolve, it is essential for legal systems to adapt accordingly, incorporating AI tools responsibly and with careful consideration. This will help maintain the delicate balance between technological advancements and the irreplaceable aspects of human intelligence in the pursuit of justice.
Overall, the Delhi High Court’s ruling sets an important precedent regarding the limitations of AI in the adjudication process. It highlights the need for cautious utilization of AI chatbots and emphasizes that human intelligence and judgment must remain at the forefront of legal proceedings. As technology progresses, striking the right balance between AI and human involvement will be crucial for a fair and effective legal system.
