The Limits To Delegation: Analyzing Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 hour ago
- 2 min read
Utkarsh Suman, O.P. Jindal Global University
Can a constitutional function be performed correctly and yet not performed at all? which is to say can the sovereign power of the adjudication be delegated to someone else? Indian law, in all possible manner, has answered yes. Our country follows common law system. The architecture of the system assumes that rendering justice is naturally a human endeavor. A minister or a judge deciding on a dispute without personally hearing it may reach factually correct result, but the inadequate deliberation will itself nullify the basis of decision. The constitution not only cares about the outcomes, it cares about human insight which demands conscious intellect which is capable of moral, equitable and logical discernment. While administrative tasks and drafting are routinely delegated to subordinate officers, the core adjudicatory function of analyzing cases, its facts, interpreting law and shaping legal reasoning has always been a non-delegable duty of lawmakers and administrative officers. The question arises whether the same insight, be delegated between a human adjudicator and a machine.
In the case of Pooja Ramesh Singh vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, the Supreme Court of India directly confronted with this issue. The case began as a dispute under Section 7 of insolvency and bankruptcy code 2016, however an appeal to Supreme Court changed the proceedings dramatically when the case was found contaminated by numerous non-existent, fabricated and hallucinated materials generated by artificial intelligence. The apex court declared that the decision built on fake material is ‘no decision in the eyes of the law’. While the immediate discourse on this case has always seen it as merely a technology issue around ‘AI Hallucination’ this paper argues that the judgement synthesizes with the deeper constitutional principle unstated as ‘doctrine of authentic judicial reasoning’.
The judgement couldn’t have come in more crucial time than this. As judiciaries globally are adopting automated systems for efficiency, the pressure of delegating research and drafting to AI has intensified. The Indian judicial system, on its way to elevating its speed and efficiency, lacked directions on the usage of AI which threatens replacement of human intellect. By settling aside the lower tribunal’s order in toto, despite its valid decision, the Supreme Court has uplifted human intellectual agency from a mere administrative practice to an absolute constitutional prerequisite for judicial legitimacy.
