Artifical Intelligence: The new kid on the block!

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

Jeff Goldblum’s character in the 1993 movie “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 closer and 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, 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 is the struggle of the everyday – the fact that we are constantly barraged with something new, unfamiliar and that requires us to adapt repeatedly.

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.

When viewed from this perspective, the real question is not whether AI is good for us or not; rather, how well and how fast can we embrace and assimilate AI.

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 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 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after noting that 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 NCLAT as well.

The incident of hallucinated case law is just one of several instances demonstrating the unreliability of AI in its current form. This is compounded by the lack of due application of mind. And therein lies the real problem.

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 it is available on the internet.

Carefully crafted prompts and engagement through feedback certainly are ways to minimise hallucinations. However, without a reasonable level of oversight, constant filtration, and verification, instances of hallucination will continue to plague the usage of AI, negatively impacting its credibility.  

B. Indiscriminate usage to avoid hard work

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

As a lawyer with over 16 years in the practice, I am now in a position to be a mentor and organisational senior in the profession. A far too common trend that I have noticed is the unadulterated and indiscriminate use of AI in first drafts.

For 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. In fact, the art of advocacy through court craft, however creative, can also be limited by the written word, or the lack thereof. Originality coupled with well-reasoned and researched points are logical corollaries thereof.

AI is being increasingly used to churn out first drafts, which feel largely similar, lacking originality and often with misplaced reasoning.

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

When I joined the profession, case-law research software such as Manupatra, SCC Online and DLT Online were still in their nascent stages and had only recently begun to be adopted by law offices. Incidents of typographical errors, omission of sentences and paragraphs, and jumbled text were still quite common. As freshers in the profession, we were promptly dressed down by seniors and judges for not carrying “books” or “commentaries”, which were the “real authorities”.

We were trained to meticulously cross check every case-law, and duly verify not just their existence but also their content, threadbare.

However, instead of rejecting research software, a different kind of hard work was employed, leading to their improvement, and transforming them into acceptable authorities.

Looking at AI today, I cannot help but equate it with the research software I grew up with in the profession.

Therefore, to my mind, the answer lies not in rejecting AI; rather, first in accepting it, and then in moulding it.

To facilitate the integration, here is my proposal:

• Frame methodology on the use of AI, coupled with role-based access. Organisations can collaborate with AI developers to cater to their specific needs. The Supreme Court of India is already contemplating such a move.

• Train people on how to use AI and how to review its output.

• Inculcate a culture of cross-checking and verification.

• Encourage originality; reward it even to minimise AI dependency.

• Invest towards institutional accountability to ensure hallucinated outcomes are identified and rejected in a timely manner.

• Improve data security while using AI, supplemented with a robust legal framework against 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 the Intellectual Property law framework to protect original works against usage by AI.

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

There is no equivalent to the art of originality. The reason why we become lawyers in the first place, on some level, is to develop the ability to “sell ice in the middle of winter, and that too at a profit."

We are also inching closer to original works produced by AI, for which we will have to equip ourselves, in terms of law, to consider questions of infringement from a whole new perspective. Courts have already been confronted with the question of copyright vesting in AI – See ‘Stephen Thaler vs. Union of India’, before Delhi High Court, qua an autonomously generated artwork by AI titled, "A Recent Entrance to Paradise."

For such a foreseeable future, we must be ready to remould ourselves accordingly.

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 need not shun AI; rather, find ways to embrace it, the right way.

Pros of AI are aplenty. A junior resource is no longer required to engage in drudgery, which results only in wasting 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. 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 with AI, and future innovations. Simultaneously, I also look forward to honing my originality, reasoning power and ability to deduce, making me not just a good lawyer, but a dynamic and modern one at that.

Not only the thoughts, but the words in this article are my own, which is heavily inspired by my background as an 80s-born Xennial-Millennial.

No AI was used in the drafting of this article, and restricted only to research (I wanted to be original, not ancient). I have also endeavoured to ensure that no AI was harmed or offended while drafting, hopefully ensuring 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, 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.

About the author: Nishtha Kumar is an Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India, and a Partner at Saga Legal.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.