Artificial Intelligence (AI) is changing the world, and the legal profession is no exception. From drafting contracts to researching old cases, technology is doing in seconds what used to take days. But should law students be allowed to use AI tools like ChatGPT in college?
According to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, the answer is a clear yes. Speaking recently at a Vice Chancellors’ Conclave at National Law University, Jodhpur, the CJI advised law schools against banning emerging technologies. Instead, he said, students must be taught how to use AI safely, transparently, and ethically.
Why Banning AI Is A Bad Idea
Many teachers worry that if students use AI, they will stop thinking for themselves. There is a real fear that future lawyers might rely on machines to write their arguments instead of using their own brains.
While the CJI acknowledged these risks, he stated that banning AI is not the solution. If a law school forbids a student from using technology, that student will still face it the moment they graduate. Whether they join a corporate office, a law firm, or a courtroom, their bosses and clients will expect them to know how to use modern tech.
By hiding these tools from students, colleges are not protecting them. They are simply sending them into the professional world a step behind everyone else.
The Danger Of Blind Trust
The CJI gave a strong warning about the limitations of AI. Sometimes, AI tools give answers that sound highly professional and legally correct, but are actually completely wrong. In the tech world, this is called an “AI hallucination.”
If a law graduate only knows how to press a button and read the output, they will become a slave to the machine. Law schools must train students to question the AI. A good lawyer must know when a machine can be trusted, when its answers must be double-checked, and when human judgment must take over.
Technology should assist a lawyer’s judgment, not replace it.
What The Law Says: AI And Legal Ethics
Using AI in the legal field is not just about convenience; it brings up serious legal and ethical rules that every law student and advocate must know.
- Professional Ethics (Advocates Act, 1961): Lawyers have a strict duty of care towards the court and their clients. If an advocate submits a legal document drafted by AI that contains fake case laws, the advocate—not the computer—will face disciplinary action for professional misconduct.
- Client Privacy (DPDP Act, 2023): Uploading sensitive client information or secret case files into a public AI tool can violate the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Lawyers must protect client confidentiality.
- Fake Evidence (BNS Section 227): If AI is misused to generate fake documents or deepfake evidence for a court case, it is a serious crime. Under Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (formerly Section 192 of the IPC), fabricating false evidence is punishable by law.
Law Schools Must Lead, Not Just Follow
The CJI challenged National Law Universities to do more than just adapt to the changing times. He wants them to become leaders in technology research. Law schools should be studying data protection, algorithmic accountability, and how to use digital tools to bring justice to the common man.
Most importantly, the CJI stressed that technology must not only benefit rich people in big metro cities. The true test of legal tech is whether it can help ordinary litigants in smaller towns get faster and fairer justice.
Why This Matters For You
Whether you are a law student, a young advocate, or a citizen seeking justice, the integration of AI into the legal system will affect you. Cases will be researched faster, and documents will be drafted quicker. However, the human element of fairness and logic cannot be coded into a machine.
The Takeaway: AI is a powerful tool, not a judge. The legal professionals of tomorrow must learn to master technology so that it serves justice, without ever compromising on ethics and fairness.
Story reported by Supreme Court – High Court – Legal Breaking News | Live Law India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
