Justice Gavai Flags Misuse Of Live-Streamed Hearings By Content Creators, Says Short Clips Often Mislead & Sensationalise

Justice BR Gavai, Judge of the Supreme Court, has expressed concerns over the misuse of livestream videos of hearings by content creators, who create short clips out of them, often sensationalising the proceedings and spreading misinformation.

Justice Gavai also said that such acts by content creators and YouTubers raise questions about the intellectual property rights and ownership of judicial proceedings. He called for clear guidelines on the usage of live-streamed proceedings.

Speaking at a conference organised by the Supreme Court of Kenya, Justice Gavai shared the experiences of the Indian judiciary with technology, particularly the adoption of virtual hearings and the commencement of livestreaming, which has enhanced access to justice as well as the transparency of court proceedings. However, he shared concerns about the misuse of the video clips.

"Short clips from court hearings are often circulated on social media, sometimes in a way that sensationalizes the proceedings. These clips, when taken out of context, can lead to misinformation, misinterpretation of judicial discussions, and inaccurate reporting.

Additionally, many content creators, including YouTubers, re-upload short excerpts from court proceedings as their own content, raising serious questions about intellectual property rights and ownership of judicial recordings. The unauthorized use and potential monetization of such content blur the lines between public access and ethical broadcasting.

Managing these challenges is an emerging issue for the judiciary. Courts may need to establish clear guidelines on the usage of live-streamed proceedings. Striking a balance between transparency, public awareness, and the responsible use of court content will be critical in addressing these ethical concerns," Justice Gavai said.

Challenges posed by AI

Justice Gavai also said that Artificial Intelligence can be a transformative experience as regards the judiciary. AI-based tools are being used for case-management, listing, scheduling, etc., which helps in reducing the administrative bottlenecks. However, Justice Gavai said that the use of AI for legal research has given rise to certain ethical concerns.

"Relying on AI for legal research comes with significant risks, as there have been instances where platforms like ChatGPT have generated fake case citations and fabricated legal facts. While AI can process vast amounts of legal data and provide quick summaries, it lacks the ability to verify sources with human-level discernment. This has led to situations where lawyers and researchers, trusting AI-generated information, have unknowingly cited non-existent cases or misleading legal precedents, resulting in professional embarrassment and potential legal consequences."

Justice Gavai also flagged the use of AI as a tool to predict judicial outcomes, which raises doubts about the very nature of justice.

"Furthermore, AI is increasingly being explored as a tool to predict court outcomes, sparking important debates about its role in judicial decision-making. This raises fundamental questions about the very nature of justice. Can a machine, lacking human emotions and moral reasoning, truly grasp the complexities and nuances of legal disputes? The essence of justice often involves ethical considerations, empathy, and contextual understanding—elements that remain beyond the reach of algorithms. The integration of AI in the judiciary, therefore, must be approached with caution, ensuring that technology serves as an aid rather than a replacement for human judgment."