AUTHOR : ANOMOL RAJAK
INTRODUCTION
Do you remember the time before Artificial Intelligence existed? When courtrooms solely and entirely depended on human-generated evidence, traditional forensic methods, and manual investigations. Today, we live in a digital world where increasingly AI-generated evidence is making its way into legal proceedings. This presents extraordinary technological advantages but also creates legal and ethical issues that we must solve.
There is a growing focus on AI-generated evidence in the Indian legal field. This kind of evidence, which includes algorithmic reconstruction, deepfake detection, predictive crime mapping, and facial recognition data, provides major benefits but also presents serious difficulties. Although Indian courts have not yet reached a definitive ruling on the admissibility of such evidence, this issue will soon take centre stage.
This article will examine:
What AI-generated evidence is
How existing Indian laws address (or fail to address) it
The ethical and legal issues to maintain accountability in technology and justice
WHAT IS AI-GENERATED EVIDENCE?
AI-generated evidence means information, reports, recordings, or processed or analytical outputs produced by AI systems for investigation and adjudicatory purposes.
While traditional evidence originates directly from human or manual processes, AI-generated evidence comes from computer systems that learn from datasets and complex algorithms. These systems convert raw data—which includes images, videos, voice recordings, and digital footprints—into systematic and dependable information that can be used by law enforcement bodies and investigative agencies.
AI-GENERATED EVIDENCE INCLUDES:
1. Surveillance Outputs Enhanced by AI Systems:
Automated facial-recognition matches
Real-time object-tracking technologies
Predictive policing intelligence
2. Forensic Analysis Produced Through AI Systems:
Algorithm-based fingerprint or DNA comparison results
Automated reconstructions of crime scenes
3. Digitally Altered or Synthetic Media:
Deepfake videos
AI-generated audio recordings
Synthetic images created through AI tools
4. Evidence Derived from Autonomous Technologies:
Data from self-driving vehicle sensors
AI-enabled home-security systems
Logs generated by automated decision-making platforms
LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
1. Section 65B: Electronic Evidence
Governs the admissibility of electronic records
Requires electronic documents to be accompanied by a certificate attesting to integrity, authenticity, and source to be accepted as evidence in court
Primarily designed for traditional forms of digital evidence (emails, SMS, digital photographs)
AI-generated outputs could be regarded as electronic records in theory, but there isn’t a formal legal procedure to confirm how an AI system reached its conclusions
Section 65B certification may be insufficient when AI decision-making is opaque
2. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Recently proposed evidence law updating India’s evidentiary laws
Explicitly acknowledges digital evidence
Lacks specific provisions for machine-generated outputs or AI analyses, creating legislative ambiguity
3. Judicial Precedents and Current Practice
Indian courts have begun accepting digital evidence but few cases address AI-generated material
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014): electronic evidence must comply with Section 65B
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020): reiterated Section 65B compliance
Both cases concern electronic evidence, not AI-generated material, where authentication and transparency of AI reasoning are critical
ADMISSIBILITY CHALLENGES
1. Authentication:
Proving AI-generated evidence has not been manipulated is complex
Deepfake audio and video are difficult to detect without advanced technological tools
2. Chain of Custody:
AI systems may not provide detailed logs of data inputs, internal processes, and outputs
Maintaining a clear and verifiable chain of custody is challenging
3. Reliability and Bias:
AI tools are only as impartial as their training data
Raises concerns regarding fairness principles
4. Lack of Regulation:
India currently lacks specialized legislation for AI use in judicial proceedings
Can lead to inconsistent and uncertain judicial decisions
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Statutory Definition and Classification:
Introduce a clear statutory definition for “AI-generated evidence”
Section 61 of the BSA replaces Section 65B but does not differentiate between electronic records and autonomous, machine-produced outputs
2. AI-Specific Admissibility Standards:
Courts and policymakers need standards evaluating reliability, accuracy, transparency, and auditability of AI evidence
3. Mandatory Certification and Algorithm Disclosure:
Adopt a protocol requiring certification for AI-generated evidence, similar to Section 65B certification
Ensure disclosure of the AI algorithm and decision-making process
4. Training for Judicial and Legal Stakeholders:
Provide regular AI literacy training for lawyers, prosecutors, and judges
Equip stakeholders with knowledge to handle technology-driven legal processes
CONCLUSION
“The increasing utilisation of AI in law enforcement, surveillance, and forensic processes is indicative of an important moment of transformation within the Indian legal system. While AI-enabled evidence exhibits the potential for efficiency and assistance in investigations, it is inevitably layered with challenges pertaining to various legal, ethical, and procedural issues. The positive capacities of AI are mitigated by statutory ambiguity, unclear standards regarding authentication, and insufficient judicial precedent, generating uncertainty and possibilities for misuse.”
As India progresses towards a technology-embedded justice system, it is crucial to:
Create a legal framework anticipating and regulating AI-based evidence
Develop standards for admissibility rules
Ensure algorithmic transparency
Establish quality assurance for certification
Provide training and resources for the judiciary and lawyers
The objective is not to oppose technological advancement, but to embrace it while ensuring AI enhances, rather than detracts from, justice. Only through knowledgeable and forward-looking reforms can India balance technological progress with constitutional values in AI-based evidence development.
