Continuing our discussions on the AI regulations in Judiciary proposed by the Supreme Court let us explore section 49,50 an 51 in Chapter VIII of the regulations which prescribes the Capacity Building, Training and Best Practices.
The requirements of these sections are reproduced below for immediate reference.
CHAPTER VIII: CAPACITY BUILDING, TRAINING, AND BEST PRACTICES
- (1) All Judges, advocates and Court staff, who are required to use or interact with AI Systems in the course of their duties, shall receive regular, structured training on the technical, legal and ethical dimensions of AI, as may be relevant to their functions.
(2) Training on use of AI in Court processes shall be accessible to all such persons, including those in district Courts, and shall be offered in a manner that accounts for linguistic diversity.
(3) The training programmes shall be developed by the AI Secretariat in consultation with relevant domain experts and judicial training institutions, and shall address, at a minimum––
(a) the functioning, capabilities and limitations of AI Systems in use in Court processes;
(b) the identification and mitigation of AI bias, hallucinations and technical errors;
(c) the legal and ethical framework governing AI in the judicial context, including the rights of litigants and the obligations of judicial officers under these regulations;
(d) data protection principles, cyber security awareness and the handling of sensitive judicial data; and
(e) the correct procedures for reporting AI Incidents, raising concerns and utilising grievance redressal mechanisms.
- Repository of best practices on AI Incidents.––The Appropriate Authority shall maintain a living repository of best practices, case studies, lessons drawn from AI Incidents and guidance notes, which shall be regularly updated, curated and made available to all relevant Courts and judicial personnel, so as to serve as an institutional memory to ensure continuity of competence, despite changes in staff or composition.
- Review of training programmes.––
(1) The adequacy and effectiveness of training programmes shall be reviewed at least once in every two years by the AI Committee in consultation with the AI Secretariat, and such modifications as are warranted by practical experience or technological developments shall be implemented.
(2) Every High Court shall devise an annual training calendar in coordination with judicial training institutions and the Apex Body, to ensure the sustained and updated competence of all judicial and administrative personnel in matters relating to AI.
According to Section 49(3), the AI secretariat is required to develop training programs in consultation with relevant domain experts and judicial training institutions to train all the Judges and other persons who are required to use AI in the system. The training needs to cover
(a) the functioning, capabilities and limitations of AI Systems in use in Court processes;
(b) the identification and mitigation of AI bias, hallucinations and technical errors;
(c) the legal and ethical framework governing AI in the judicial context, including the rights of litigants and the obligations of judicial officers under these regulations;
(d) data protection principles, cyber security awareness and the handling of sensitive judicial data; and
(e) the correct procedures for reporting AI Incidents, raising concerns and utilising grievance redressal mechanisms.
Further the regulation also requires that the Grievance Redressal system will also be required to be set up at all the places to handle the grievances related to harm caused by AI usage. This team also needs to be separately trained since there is no specified appeal mechanism specified.
Under section 53, the aggrieved persons will also be open to seeking redressal of grievance though any other competent court. This means that the DPB-TDSAT-SC route for grievance redressal in case of personal data related disputes may still be available.
Naavi
