In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), digital jurisprudence in India is rapidly evolving. Digital jurisprudence refers to the use of digital technology and AI in the legal system to make it more efficient and accessible. This transformation is helping to streamline legal processes, from filing cases online to using AI for legal research and even predicting case outcomes. By integrating advanced technology, India’s legal system aims to reduce delays, enhance transparency, and improve access to justice for everyone. As AI continues to develop, it holds the potential to revolutionize how laws are interpreted and applied, making the justice system more responsive and effective.
Tags: GS- 3, Science & Technology- IT & Computers- India in adv. tech.
Context:
- Generative AI (GAI) represents a transformative force with the potential to revolutionise various facets of society.
- While Generative AI is transformative and revolutionary, current legal frameworks and precedents designed for a pre-AI era may struggle to effectively govern its rapid evolution.
Key Contentious Issues Surrounding Internet Governance:
- Safe Harbour and Liability Fixation
- Issue: Determining the liability of intermediaries for the content they host.
- Key Judgement: The landmark Shreya Singhal judgement upheld Section 79 of the IT Act, granting intermediaries ‘safe harbour’ protection contingent upon meeting due diligence requirements.
- Challenge: The application of this protection to Generative AI tools remains problematic.
- The Copyright Conundrum
- Issue: The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 does not adequately address the complexities introduced by AI-generated works.
- Key Provision: Section 16 of the Act stipulates that no person is entitled to copyright protection except as provided by the Act.
- Critical Questions:
- Should existing copyright provisions be revised to accommodate AI?
- If AI-generated works gain protection, would co-authorship with a human be mandatory?
- Should recognition extend to the user, the program, and the programmer, or both?
- Parliamentary Standing Committee Report: The 161st report acknowledged that the Copyright Act is not well-equipped to facilitate authorship and ownership by AI.
- Current Law: A copyright owner can take legal action against infringers, with remedies such as injunctions and damages.
- Uncertainty: The question of who is responsible for copyright infringement by AI tools remains unclear.
- Terms of Use: ChatGPT’s ‘Terms of Use’ attempt to shift liability to the user for illegal output, but the enforceability of such terms in India is uncertain.
- Privacy and Data Protection
- Key Judgement: The landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgement (2017) by the Supreme Court of India established a strong foundation for privacy jurisprudence.
- Legislation: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP).
- Privacy Concerns: While traditional data aggregators raise privacy concerns, Generative AI introduces a new layer of complexity.
- Rights: The DPDP Act introduces the “right to erasure” and the “right to be forgotten.”
- Challenge:
- Once a GAI model is trained on a dataset, it cannot truly “unlearn” the information absorbed, raising critical questions about how individuals can exercise control over their personal information embedded in AI models.
Arguments Surrounding the Classification of GAI Tools:
- Arguments for GAI Tools as Intermediaries
- Function Similarity to Search Engines:
- GAI tools function similarly to search engines by responding to user queries without hosting external links or third-party websites.
- This operational similarity suggests they should be considered intermediaries eligible for safe harbour protection.
- Content Generation Based on User Prompts:
- GAI tools generate content based on user prompts, implying that the responsibility for the content lies primarily with the user, not the tool.
- Function Similarity to Search Engines:
- Arguments Against GAI Tools as Intermediaries
- Active Content Creation:
- Critics argue that GAI tools actively create content, making them more than mere conduits.
- This active role in content creation should subject them to higher liability standards.
- Distinction Between User-Generated and Platform-Generated Content:
- The distinction between user-generated and platform-generated content becomes increasingly challenging.
- Unlike traditional intermediaries, GAI tools significantly transform user inputs into new outputs, complicating the liability landscape.
- Active Content Creation:
Judicial Precedents, Challenges, Real-World Implications and Legal Conflicts Surrounding the Classification of GAI:
- Judicial Precedent:
- The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Christian Louboutin Sas vs. Nakul Bajaj and Ors (2018) introduced the concept of “passive” intermediaries, which applies to entities that merely transmit information without altering it.
- This ruling complicates the classification of GAI tools, as they do not fit neatly into the passive intermediary category due to their active role in content generation.
- Key Judicial Challenges:
- Distinguishing User-Generated Prompts vs. Platform-Generated Outputs:
- Courts must grapple with distinguishing between user-generated prompts and platform-generated outputs.
- This distinction is crucial for determining the extent of liability.
- Complexity in Liability Issues:
- Liability issues become more complex when AI-generated content is reposted on other platforms by users.
- Courts must decide whether the initial generation or subsequent dissemination attracts liability.
- Distinguishing User-Generated Prompts vs. Platform-Generated Outputs:
- Real-World Implications and Legal Conflicts:
- Generative AI has already led to legal conflicts in various jurisdictions. For instance, in June 2023, a radio host in the United States filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT had defamed him.
- Such cases highlight the ambiguity in classifying GAI tools and the resulting complications in assigning liability.
- Issues Raised:
- AI-generated content can lead to defamation or the spread of misinformation, raising questions about accountability.
- The debate continues over whether users should bear the primary responsibility for AI-generated content or whether the creators of GAI tools should be held liable.
Potential Solutions and Future Directions to Address the Challenges Posed by GAI:
- Learning by Doing: Temporary Immunity and Sandbox Approach
- Granting temporary immunity from liability to GAI platforms under a sandbox approach fosters innovation.
- It allows developers to experiment with new applications and enhance existing models without immediate legal concerns.
- Regulatory sandboxes provide a controlled environment for regulators to observe interactions between GAI tools and users, gathering valuable insights into legal, ethical, and practical challenges.
- Governments should establish these sandboxes, overseen by regulatory bodies or independent authorities, fostering a feedback loop among developers, regulators.
- Data Rights and Responsibilities: Overhauling Data Acquisition Processes
- Ensuring the legal acquisition of data used to train GAI models is essential for protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining public trust.
- Developers must acknowledge and compensate intellectual property owners whose data is used, ensuring a fair and transparent ecosystem.
- Governments should develop enforceable licensing agreements for data used in GAI training, outlining terms of use, compensation, and data owner rights.
- Licensing Challenges: Creating Centralised Platforms
- The decentralised nature of web data complicates licensing, hindering efficient access for developers.
- Centralised platforms can streamline this process, providing easier access to necessary data while maintaining its quality and integrity.
- Governments should establish centralised repositories or platforms akin to stock photo websites (e.g., Getty Images) for licensing web data.
- These platforms can offer standardised terms and facilitate access to diverse, accurate data for training GAI models.
Conclusion:
Hence, the evolving jurisprudence of Generative AI requires a comprehensive re-evaluation of digital laws. A holistic government approach and careful court interpretations are crucial to maximising benefits, safeguarding rights, and preventing harm. As GAI progresses, legal frameworks must adapt for responsible, ethical innovation that protects societal values.
| UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs) Mains: Q:1 What are the different elements of cyber security ? Keeping in view the challenges in cyber security, examine the extent to which India has successfully developed a comprehensive National Cyber Security Strategy.(UPSC 2022) Q:2 The emergence of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Digital Revolution) has initiated e-Governance as an integral part of government”. Discuss. (2020) |
Source: TH
FAQs
Q: What is digital jurisprudence?
- Answer: Digital jurisprudence refers to the use of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), in the field of law and justice. It involves using technology to improve how laws are interpreted, applied, and enforced.
Q: How is AI being used in the Indian legal system?
- Answer: AI is being used in the Indian legal system for tasks such as analyzing legal documents, predicting case outcomes, and automating repetitive tasks like document review. AI tools help lawyers and judges work more efficiently and make better-informed decisions.
Q: What are the benefits of digital jurisprudence?
- Answer: The benefits of digital jurisprudence include faster case processing, reduced workload for legal professionals, improved access to legal information, and enhanced accuracy in legal research and decision-making. This helps make the legal system more efficient and accessible to everyone.
Q: Are there any concerns about using AI in law?
- Answer: Yes, there are concerns about using AI in law, such as the potential for bias in AI algorithms, privacy issues, and the risk of over-reliance on technology. It’s important to ensure that AI systems are transparent, fair, and used as a tool to assist, not replace, human judgment.
Q: How can digital jurisprudence impact the future of law in India?
- Answer: Digital jurisprudence can revolutionize the legal system in India by making it more efficient, transparent, and accessible. It can help reduce case backlogs, provide better legal services to people in remote areas, and ensure quicker and more accurate legal resolutions. As technology continues to advance, the legal system can adapt to meet new challenges and opportunities.
To get free counseling/support on UPSC preparation from expert mentors please call 9773890604
- Join our Main Telegram Channel and access PYQs, Current Affairs and UPSC Guidance for free – Edukemy for IAS
- Learn Economy for free- Economy for UPSC
- Mains Answer Writing Practice-Mains Answer Writing
- For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here
