Lawyers need to use Large Language Models (LLM) like ChatGPT with caution while preparing pleadings and arguments, a group of judges underscored in unison at a panel discussion on Monday evening..The judges from the Rajasthan High Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) were speaking at a panel discussion during the ongoing India International Disputes Week 2026. The topic of the panel discussion was 'Judges: Past and Present'. It was held at Chandigarh's iconic Open Hand Monument near the Punjab and Haryana High Court..Rajasthan High Court Justice Arun Monga stressed the need to cross-verify content prepared using artificial intelligence (AI) models with the underlying source material."Otherwise, you will become an artificial lawyer. You don't want to do that," Justice Monga said.Referring to a recent case in which a trial court judge cited AI-generated case laws in an order, Justice Monga said the situation had reached "alarming propositions"."Recently, a young judicial officer passed an order which has landed up in Supreme Court, and now Supreme Court is grappling with the issue. They (Supreme Court judges) are going to now make a law under [Article] 142. There is going to be some guidelines on how to use AI," he said..Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Vinod Bhardwaj highlighted various benefits of technology in the adjudication of cases. However, he also referred to an instance of AI hallucination he came across while hearing a case and explained how it can delay decision-making. "Many times, you will find a reference to a case. I encountered a petition where I questioned the lawyer, 'where is the citation'. He said, 'I don't have the citation'. It is not a rare case. This is the experience we have. When I asked for the copy [of the cited verdict], he didn't have the copy. My law researchers searched for it. It was not there because no such citation exists. As a result of this, your work increases. You have a pleading which is making a reference to certain judicial precedents. You are, as a judge, required to look into the judicial precedents which are non existent. And ultimately, your exercise gets increased. It increases manifold in order to even decipher that," Justice Bhardwaj said.He also revealed that some lawyers were using the facility of hybrid courtrooms to get cases adjourned."The (legal) fraternity uses it as a means of seeking a date rather than wanting an adjudication. So in case somebody is not willing to argue a matter before a particular bench or wherever that he doesn't want to argue, he would log on through the AI mode and then take a technical glitch as an excuse not to advance arguments. So it is not a technological disability, It is how you use it. So it has a potential of helping a judge in an expeditious adjudication of a list provided all stakeholders really work it out along with everyone else," Justice Bhardwaj added..Justice Hakesh Manuja, another Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, said the judiciary cannot afford to hand over the adjudicatory process to Artificial Intelligence (AI)."My take on this Artificial Intelligence is that we should go ahead with it but with a little bit of caution. It is definitely going to help the judicial system, the adjudicatory process but till the point we don’t hand over the adjudicatory process itself to the AI," he said.He said that the government, which is often known as the biggest litigator, can use predictive analysis technology of the AI tools to find out the probability of success in an appeal. "There is a platform. Indian bail predictive system has also been developed. where you can give an FIR and it can predict the success of bail," Justice Manuja said.He further said that judges in the Kerala High Court use an AI tool that provides them with a summary of the pleadings and the entire case file."Now there we are lagging behind. We are not having that kind of facility. We have to work a lot on this, because if the pleadings are shortened, we are provided with the summary of the pleadings. We are provided with the summary of the complete file. Of course, it will have to be verified or cross checked at some level, but that will help a judge, that will give him more time to record judgment, to give reasons, to give conclusions," Justice Manuja said.The judge also said more than youngsters, judges needed training to understand AI tools."My opinion is rather than starting with youngsters, it should start with us only," Justice Manuja added.However, he also sounded a word of caution."We have to be cautious, verify information. We have to be doubly sure before putting it in pleadings or arguments before Court," Justice Manuja said..Similarly, First-tier Tribunal Judge in the UK, Judge Sukhi Gill said there have been multiple occasions where the use of AI-produced content in a courtroom has caused embarrassment to advocates."Please do cross-reference it to the legislation. Please do cross-reference it to the cases that it is throwing up at you," Gill said.She also highlighted that technology in the UK was helping in prevention of unnecessary appeals. .Judge Manpreet Monica Singh of Harris County Civil Court in USA's Texas said the case files were digitized in the US only after 2018."Ironically, our tech support is in India, and so you know, you guys have the resources, because we come to you for those resources," she added.She also highlighted the expeditious nature of adjudication in the US but acknowledged that Indian judges have much more case load."Our whole job is to serve our people. The way we manage the docket, I hear case start to finish within a year, maybe a year and a half. However, we don't have the same type of justice system that you do, where you hear every single case that anybody would like to be heard for. We don't have that. And I think that that's a beautiful thing too, that we're missing," Judge Singh said..Judge Jinder Singh Boora, Circuit Judge at County Court of Walsall & Birmingham said that AI is the ultimate weapon in the judicial system at present."I am completely fine with an AI-generated synopsis, provided the foundational information is accurate. If the source material is correct and the AI is merely summarizing it, there is no issue with using AI. Furthermore, I am also comfortable with a document entirely created by AI as long as the individual responsible for generating it verifies its accuracy to ensure it is 100 percent correct. No problem," Judge Boora said..Senior Advocate Anand Chhibbar moderated the session. .[Read Live Updates].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
