Dr. D.Y.

Patil College of Law

National Moot Court Competition

DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF ARYANA
W.P. ____ OF 2024

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYANA

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE FREEDOM INITATIVE & ORS ………. PETITIONER

-VS-

THE REPUBLIC OF ARYANA ………. RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 1 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………..……………………..……………………...2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………..…………………..………………....3

 CASES REFERRED……………………………………………………………......3

 LEGISLATIONS………………………………………………………..…………..3

 BOOKS REFERRED…………………………………………………..…………..4

 LEGAL DATABASE…………………………………………………..…………...5

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………...5

4. SUMMARY OF FACTS……..…………..……………………..………………………..6

5. ISSUES RAISED ……………………..…………………..……………………………..7

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………..…………………………………….8

 Does the use of an AI algorithm in pre-trial detention decisions, bail hearings, and
sentencing violate the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Aryana?...............................................................................………….9
 Can the recommendations given by the AI Algorithm be considered as evidence in
judicial proceedings?....................................................................................................9
 Does the use of an AI algorithm to predict criminal behavior violate the right to
equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of Aryana by
disproportionately affecting certain
communities?.......................................................9
 Does the use of an AI algorithm in criminal justice decision-making raise concerns
about transparency, accountability, and due process, as guaranteed under the
Constitution of Aryana?................................................................................................9
7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED ……………………..…………………..…………………10

8. PRAYER……………………..………………..……………………..…………...……..17

Page 2 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. LEGISLATIONS

S.No LEGISLATION YEAR

1 The Constitution of Aryana 1950
2 Right to Information Act 2005
3 National strategy for AI 2018
4 Aryana Evidence Act 1872
5 Digital Data Protection Act 2023
6 International Human Rights Convention

2. LEGAL DATABASE

S.NO LEGAL DATABASE WEBSITE

1 SCC Online https://ssc.nic.in/
2 Manupatra https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop
3 Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/
4 Lawctopus https://www.lawctopuslawschool.com/
5 AIR Online https://www.aironline.in/
6 Bar and Bench https://www.barandbench.com/
7 Lexis Nexis https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/
8 Supreme Court Bulletin https://main.sci.gov.in/publication
9 Find Law https://www.findlaw.com/
10 West Law India https://www.westlawasia.com/india

Page 3 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

3. BOOKS REFERRED

S.NO BOOKS AUTHOR

1 Indian Polity 5th Edition M. Laxmikanth
2 Constitution of India V N Shukla
3 Artificial Unintelligence Meredith Broussard
4 Law of writs V G Ramachandran
5 Privacy in the age of Big data Theresa Payton
6 The Black Box Society Frank Pasquale
7 Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court NK Acharya

4. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.N ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
O
1 AI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

2 NCRB NATIONAL CRIME RECORD BUREAU

3 AIA ARYANA INSTITUTE OF AI

4 CRP CRIMINAL RISK PREDICTION

5 PPD PREEMPTIVE POLICING AND DETENTION

6 DP DUE PROCESS

7 FT FAIR TRIAL

8 RTI RIGHT TO INFORMATION

9 RTP RIGHT TO PRIVACY

10 NGO NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION

Page 4 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

5. CASES AND ARTICLES REFERRED

 The case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1997)

 The case of Marudu Gopalan Ramachandran v. Union of India (1950)
 The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
 The case of K.P. Shankaran v. State of Kerala (2002)
 The case of Marudu Gopalan Ramachandran v. Union of India (1950)
 The case of Sheela Rani Bhatia v. Rakesh Sharma (2009)
 The case of Husainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar (1979)
 The case of Lt. Colonel Maharaj Singh v. Union of India (1978)
 the case State of Gujarat v. Forensic Technologies Pvt. Ltd

 AI in criminal Justice; Methods & Concerns in crime detection and prevention in India
(by Manoj Meena & Aishvarya Joshi).

 Using Artificial Intelligence to address criminal justice needs by Christiano Rigano.

 Artificial Intelligence as Evidence by Paul W. Grimm, Maura R. Grossman & Gordon V.

Cormack.

 Use of AI in criminal justice by Lexis Nexis.

 Responsible AI for all released by Niti Ayog.

Page 5 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryana that; the

respondent has appeared before this Hon’ble Court in response to the notice sent to the

respondent about the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner under section 32 of the

Constitution of Aryana.

Page 6 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. The Union of Aryana has a complex legal system that seeks to balance the rights and
interests of the people. The integration of advanced technologies, and the adoption of
various sorts of AI tech, into various aspects of the nation, has become very common.
2. The significant increase in crime rates within the country for the past few years, which led to
a debate about the efficiency of the criminal justice system in Aryana. Some even stated that
the current criminal justice system was outdated since there was a significant decrease in
conviction rates.
3. There was a serious concern about how to improve the criminal justice system but the
resources were not sufficient to improve law enforcement and the overall criminal justice
system. It led to o apprehensions about the effectiveness of the conventional methods of
crime prevention and detection as well.
4. The Government of Aryana’s premiere, Samarthan Kendra recommended the government to
adopt the use of various AI algorithms to potentially predict criminal behavior which helps
us to identify high-risk individuals and further stop the crime preemptively. The government
said this would not only help in reducing the crime rates and promote public safety in the
country but also improve the overall decision-making process and further save on resources
as well.
5. The Government of Aryana developed an AI algorithm known as ‘Raksha Vimarsh’ and its
function is to predict the potential chances of a person to commit a crime shortly by
predictive policing, machine learning, and predicting the likelihood of a person reoffending
by integrating and analyzing the data from various sources.
6. The team that developed Raksha Vimarsh consisted of highly qualified data scientists,
criminal justice experts, and even experts within the field of criminology. The main base of
Raksha Vimarsh is previous historical criminal records and other public data sources from
the National Crime Record Bureau.
7. The AI Algorithm was tested by using criminal data from Aryana’s NCRB to ensure that the
algorithm was accurate to ensure that it was reliable to be deployed. It was tested in 2 states
of Aryana before deploying Nationwide and got mixed results. On one hand, it increases the
efficiency of the criminal justice system and apprehension about the short testing period.

Page 7 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

8. Eventually both houses of parliament passed a law that mandates the use of Raksha Vimarsh
in the criminal justice system nationwide. The AI Algorithm was used in pretrial
proceedings, bail hearings, and sentencing. There was a major outcry by various civil
societies and NGOs as well as legal scholars regarding the adoption of the law.
9. A separate bill was passed that mandated the collection of data from a person who was
previously convicted of a crime and instructed to provide security for good behavior or
maintaining peace, arrested in connection with an offense, or detained under any preventive
detention law. The NCRB was mandated under the act to collect, preserve, process, store,
destroy, and most importantly share the data with relevant authorities upon an order.
10. This process of collecting a huge amount of extensive data became a vital resource for the
functioning and the evolution of the improvement of Raksha Vimarch and more and more
AI techniques and models were added for understanding potential criminal behaviors and
patterns to make the predictions more precise in nature.
11. Raksha Vimarch’s source code was exempted from the Right to Information Act and was not
available to the general public and the government claimed that it was a matter of national
security and for the protection of sensitive information. They said this is done to ensure the
integrity and to prevent the misuse of the algorithm.
12. NCRB released a report and mentioned there was a significant decrease in administrative
costs and resources since various judiciary processes got streamlined and fastened. The
Government is working with the Aryana Institute of AI and Advanced machine learning to
minimize the errors and even reduce and eliminate the potential for biases within the model.
13. In several cases the implementation of Raksha Vimarsh led to unfair judgments then the law
was passed by the government stated that a judge must give justifications as to why they did
not follow the recommendation put out by Raksha Vimarsh.
14. Mr. X was arrested on the suspicion of theft but bail was not granted Raksha Vimarsh
predicted this man had a high chance of committing a crime based on his age, education,
and high crime rate in his neighborhood so Mr. X filed a petition challenging the validity of
the recommendation given by Raksha Vimarsh. A group of civil rights activists, The
Freedom Initiative, and various other legal scholars have challenged the constitutionality of
the use of Raksha Vimarsh.

Page 8 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

ISSUES RAISED

I. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM IN PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

DECISIONS, BAIL HEARINGS, AND SENTENCING VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO
A FAIR TRIAL GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF ARYANA?

II. CAN THE RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN BY THE AI ALGORITHM BE

CONSIDERED EVIDENCE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS?

III. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM TO PREDICT CRIMINAL

BEHAVIOUR VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY GUARANTEED UNDER
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYANA BY
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTING CERTAIN COMMUNITIES?

IV. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISION-

MAKING RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND DUE PROCESS, AS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
ARYANA?

Page 9 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

I. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM IN PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

DECISIONS, BAIL HEARINGS, AND SENTENCING VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO
A FAIR TRIAL GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF ARYANA?

 It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to acknowledge the advisory role of the
Raksha Vimarsh, its potential to enhance informed decision-making, can help the
judiciary to mitigate biased human decisions which leads to making more fairer, rational,
and more objective decisions and its contribution to improving public safety and
improving the efficiency of the judiciary in the administration of justice shows that
Raksha Vimarsh is not violating the right to a fair trial guaranteed under article 21 of the
constitution.

II. CAN THE RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN BY THE AI ALGORITHM BE

CONSIDERED EVIDENCE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryana that the
recommendations given by the AI Algorithm can be used by judges to make more
informed decisions and potentially support legal arguments through supplementary
evidence, complement the existing pieces of evidence and the expert opinion, and not
replace the traditional methods of evaluating evidence, and offering several potential
benefits that can be considered as a piece of evidence in judicial proceedings.

Page 10 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

III. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM TO PREDICT CRIMINAL

BEHAVIOUR VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY GUARANTEED UNDER
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYANA BY
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTING CERTAIN COMMUNITIES?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryana the use of an AI
algorithm to predict criminal behavior by analyzing vast amounts of databases and
criminal records, help the court to bridge language barriers, identify the person who is
likely to commit a crime in the future, can improve the access to justice for all and
promotes the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of Aryana
and provides equal treatment for all the communities in a rational manner.

IV. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISION-

MAKING RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND DUE PROCESS, AS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
ARYANA?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the use of an AI algorithm
in criminal justice decision-making algorithm can help legal professionals understand
how decisions are made, can establish consistency in decision-making by analyzing data
of past offenses, recidivism rates, and location-based crime data reduces potential bias in
pretrial detention, and data-driven explanations enhance judicial accountability, provides
fair sentencing, promotes transparency and due process, guaranteed under the
Constitution of Aryana

Page 11 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

I. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM IN PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

DECISIONS, BAIL HEARINGS, AND SENTENCING VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO
A FAIR TRIAL GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF ARYANA?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the law mandates the
judges to use Raksha Vimarsh as a tool to assist themselves and look for
recommendations to make decisions but the discretion to make individual decisions
remains with the judges in Pre-trial decisions, Bail hearings and sentencing and such
autonomy to decide the case remain with the judge is the core principle of fair trial and it
proves that there is no violation of article 21 of the constitution.
 It is submitted that human judgments have a high possibility of having bias or
discrimination towards people from specific community castes or religions but the data-
driven AI algorithm can help the judiciary to mitigate biased human decisions which
leads to taking more fairer, rational, and more objective decisions in pre-trial decisions,
Bail hearings and sentencing which ensures the judiciary in conducting a fair trial.
 It is submitted that the use of AI algorithm will help the judiciary to analyze vast amounts
of data and databases which give the judges a comprehensive picture and helps to think
from a wider perspective which promotes informed decision-making and identifies the
person who has a high chances of reoffending and to prevent such potential risk in the
future and help the judiciary in ensuring administration of justice.
 It is submitted that more than 50 million cases are pending over the high court and district
courts and more than 85% of the cases are pending in the district courts alone as of
December 2022 which shows there is high pressure for the judiciary in the administration
of justice and need for reform to improve the efficiency of the judiciary and by
incorporating Raksha Vimarsh AI algorithm we can automate the routine task, can easily

Page 12 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

analyze the evidence and potentially speed up the litigation process which promotes fair
trial.

 It is submitted that using the AI algorithm in the judiciary will help to tackle the problem
of resource constraints by automating repetitive tasks like case management, pre-trial
detentions, bail hearings, and sentencing will improve efficiency and potentially reduce
administrative costs and identify the high-priority areas and allocate the resources
efficiently will ensure the right to fair trial.
 It is submitted that the adoption of AI algorithm in the judiciary will ensure a more
consistent application of law throughout the court systems and thus potentially reduce the
difference in interpretation of the law made among the judges in different jurisdictions
and result in similar and fairer outcomes which promote the right to a fair trial guaranteed
under article 21 of the constitution of Aryana.
 It is submitted that the use of AI algorithms by using the technique of criminal profiling
which uses various data including psychological and behavioral characteristics to create
profiles of the potential offenders and Recidivism which predicts the likelihood of an
individual reoffending after a criminal conviction will help the judiciary in pre-trial
detention, bail hearing and sentencing to take decisions by predicting the probability of
the accused to recommit the crime.
 It is submitted that the AI-enabled crime-prevention algorithms and machine learning will
help us to identify potential criminal hotspots and predict where crimes are likely to occur
which will help the judiciary to reduce the crime rates, promote public safety in the
country, and improve the overall decision-making process.
 It is submitted that the judiciary can adopt AI algorithms to do predictive analysis which
is a complex process that uses a large volume of data such as historical crime records,
social media information, and surveillance records to forecast and identify the people
who have high chances of committing a crime which will be very useful in deciding the
bail hearing in a more rational manner where high-risk individuals will not be provided
bail.
 It is submitted that the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1997) This case dealt
with the principle of proportionality in sentencing. Excessive punishment exceeding the
Page 13 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

crime can violate the right to life and liberty under Article 21 and the AI algorithm will
help to ensure the principle of proportionality and avoid the bias and prejudices of the
human judges to prevent innocent from excessive punishment and maintain consistency
in bail hearing proceedings
 It is submitted that the case of Marudu Gopalan Ramachandran v. Union of India
(1950) This landmark case established the right to a fair trial under Article 21. This
includes following proper procedures during sentencing to ensure a fair outcome and to
strengthen such judgment the AI algorithm can be programmed accordingly to maintain
consistency in the judicial procedures which leads to fair outcomes irrespective of judges
or jurisdiction.
 It is submitted that the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) This case
established the principle of "procedure established by law" under Article 21. This
principle applies to pre-trial detention, requiring fair procedures and safeguards against
arbitrary detention. The Raksha Vimarsh further strengthens the procedure established by
law without any human interference which will safeguard individuals from arbitrary
detention due to existing societal bias and prejudices.
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to acknowledge the advisory
role of the Raksha Vimarsh, its potential to enhance informed decision-making, its
contribution to improving public safety and improving the efficiency of the judiciary in
the administration of justice shows that Raksha Vimarsh is not violating the right to a fair
trial guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution.

1
The case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1997)

The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The case of Marudu Gopalan Ramachandran v. Union of India (1950)
“Responsible AI: A Global Policy Framework”. ITechLaw. Available at https://www.itechlaw.org/ResponsibleAI/
Access
The Constitution of India 1950
The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, “What is Artificial Intelligence.”
Responsible AI released by Niti Ayog
Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Judicial System by Ministry of Law and Justice

Page 14 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

II. CAN THE RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN BY THE AI ALGORITHM BE

CONSIDERED EVIDENCE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the recommendations
given by the AI algorithm can considered expert evidence as per section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act 1872 where the AI algorithm with specialized knowledge in a particular
field or subject matter will provide its opinion by analyzing a large amount of data which
will be helpful for the judge to decide a case in judicial proceedings.
 It is submitted that the AI algorithm can potentially support the arguments of legal
professionals by analyzing vast amounts of data and identifying patterns or trends that
might be difficult for humans to find and such information can be used by legal
professionals to strengthen their arguments and pursue their claims by providing
additional evidence shows that AI algorithms are value addition and such evidence will
be useful in administration of justice.
 It is submitted that the use of AI algorithm recommendations as evidence during the
judicial proceeding can be used by judges to make more informed decisions and the
recommendations of the AI algorithm will be derived by analyzing a large amount of data
and legal database and identify potential criminal activities and predict recidivism risk
and as a result, it improves risk assessment and decision making of the judiciary.
 It is submitted that the evidence provided by the humans and witness testimony has a
high possibility of bias or discrimination towards people from certain communities of
people like castes or religions but the data-driven AI algorithms recommendations can
help the judiciary to mitigate biased pieces of evidence which leads to taking more fairer,
rational, and more objective decisions in judicial proceedings.
 It is submitted that the recommendations given by the AI algorithms will further
complement the existing pieces of evidence and the expert opinion and not replace the
traditional methods of evaluating evidence so such recommendations can be considered
as supplementary evidence which will help the court to decide the case based on merits of
the evidence.

Page 15 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

 It is submitted that the evidence that tends to prove or disprove a fact that is important to
resolve a civil or criminal case can be admissible and similarly, the AI algorithm is also
providing recommendations after analyzing the vast amount of data will be accurate and
ascertain the facts in a court of law so recommendations can be considered as evidence in
the judicial proceedings.
 It is submitted that a witness is qualified as an expert through their specialized knowledge
in a particular field or a subject matter beyond the personal knowledge of any other
person and helps the judges to understand certain data and evidence similarly the AI
algorithm can analyze vast amounts of data and provide detailed analysis of that may be
difficult for humans to analyze and offer the court a more comprehensive picture of the
case and assist the legal professionals in presenting their arguments effectively.
 It is submitted that the traditional pieces of evidence, witness testimonies, and expert
testimonies have a high probability of being tampered with, corrupted, or biased but the
chances of tampering or corruption of the AI recommendations are nearly impossible
which shows that the AI evidence is reliable, accurate and not biased so it can be
considered as relevant evidence in the judicial proceedings.
 It is submitted that the evidence is relevant only to the extent that it can prove or disprove
facts which is essential for the resolution of a case and the AI algorithms are a set of rules
or procedures for solving a problem and can prove or disprove a fact so this can be
considered as evidence in judicial proceedings.
 It is submitted that the case of K.P. Shankaran v. State of Kerala (2002) This case
allowed computer-generated bank statements as evidence when accompanied by an
expert witness who could explain their authenticity and generation process. This case
highlights how digital evidence can supplement traditional paper records and similarly,
the recommendations of the AI algorithm can be admitted in the judicial proceedings and
can be authenticated by an expert witness which will assist the court in the decision-
making process.

Page 16 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

 It is submitted that the case of Kishorlal v. State (Rajasthan) (1995) This case dealt
with the admissibility of computer-generated records. The court ruled that such records
could be admitted as evidence if they were generated by a computer system functioning
regularly and the information used was reliable. Similarly, Raksha Vimarsh is an AI
algorithm that can analyze a large amount of data and provide fair and reliable
information without any prejudices or biases which will help the court for conducting a
fair trial.
 It is submitted that the case of Sheela Rani Bhatia v. Rakesh Sharma (2009) This case
highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence, especially when dealing with
circumstantial evidence. Digital evidence can be used to strengthen the prosecution's case
alongside other forms of evidence similarly the recommendations of the AI algorithm can
also be used as a supplementary form of evidence and used to strengthen the case along
with other forms of evidence.
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the recommendations
given by the AI Algorithm can potentially support legal arguments through
supplementary evidence, offering several potential benefits that can be considered as a
piece of evidence in judicial proceedings.

2
The case of K.P. Shankaran v. State of Kerala (2002)
The case of Kishorlal v. State (Rajasthan) (1995)
The case of Sheela Rani Bhatia v. Rakesh Sharma (2009)
Indian Evidence Act 1872
Bernard Marr, “What Is the Difference Between Deep Learning, Machine Learning and AI?” Forbes (December 8,
2016).
A Recommendation System for Statutory Interpretation in Cybercrime” at the University of Pittsburgh, NIJ award
number 2016-R2-CX-0010.

Page 17 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

III. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM TO PREDICT CRIMINAL

BEHAVIOUR VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY GUARANTEED UNDER
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYANA BY
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTING CERTAIN COMMUNITIES?

 It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that by using an AI algorithm to predict
criminal behavior and identify the person who is likely to commit a crime in the future
and by identifying high criminal activity hotspots, we can take preventive measures in
those areas will potentially create a safe environment for everyone and this enforces the
right to equality guaranteed under article 14 of the constitution.
 It is submitted that human judges might unconsciously make wrong decisions in pretrial
detentions and bail hearings based on stereotypes and personal biases but the AI
algorithm is designed and trained to analyze the data objectively and reduce bias based on
factors like race, religion, or socioeconomic background which ensures equal treatment
for all the communities.
 It is submitted that an AI algorithm can identify the person who is likely to commit a
crime in the future based on objective factors like past offenses, location-based crime
statistics, and recidivism rates and this can be used to allocate resources to prevent the
crime based on the intensity of threat which promotes the fairer resources allocation in
the criminal justice system and ensures equal protection of the laws within the territory of
the country guaranteed by article 14 of the constitution.
 It is submitted that Raksha Vimarsh analyzes past criminal data and behavioral patterns to
identify individuals at high risk of future criminal activity by using actors like previous
offenses, recidivism rates, and location-based crime statistics and this itself shows that
the AI algorithm is focusing on objective risk assessments and eliminate the inequalities
in the society and safeguard the right to equality.
 It is submitted that by incorporating Raksha Vimarsh an AI algorithm we will be able to
achieve consistency in decision-making that human judges might struggle with and this
ensures that people who are facing similar situations will receive similar judgments
regardless of the judge or court under different jurisdictions which ensures equal
treatment for all before the law.
Page 18 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

 It is submitted that more than 50 million cases are pending over the high court and district
courts and more than 85% of the cases are pending in the district courts alone as of
December 2022 which shows access to justice was denied to a large section of the society
but by incorporating AI algorithm, we can take decisions even faster and can automate
the repetitive tasks leads to speedy resolution of a dispute so we can improve the access
to justice for all the people of the country.
 It is submitted that the incorporation of Raksha Vimarsh in the pretrial stage and bail
hearing can help the judge analyze data and predict the chances of a defendant re-
offending a similar crime if he is released on bail and this can help the judges in making
informed decisions and to maintain the safety of the public ensures equal protection of
the laws within the territory of the country guaranteed by article 14 of the constitution.
 It is submitted that Raksha Vimarsh can be designed and trained to identify potential
procedural errors in legal proceedings and ensure the right to fair trial of all the parties
which is guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution and make sure the legal matters
are resolved according to the established rules and principles which guarantees equal
treatment for everyone involved in the legal system.
 It is further submitted that AI-powered translation tools help the court to bridge language
barriers in legal proceedings ensuring all the participants understand the proceedings
regardless of their native language and this helps to understand how such sentence is
delivered by the judge will promote equal treatment of all the people before law and
ensures the right to equality.
 It is submitted that the case of Husainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar (1979) This
landmark case emphasized the right to a speedy trial. The use of digital evidence can
potentially expedite trials by allowing for faster presentation and analysis of information.
Similarly, the adoption of an AI algorithm in the criminal justice system will help the
judges to diagnose cases faster and promote access to justice for all people in the country
which ensures the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the constitution of
Aryana.
 It is submitted that Lt. Colonel Maharaj Singh v. Union of India (1978) This case
clarifies the concept of burden of proof. When digital evidence is introduced, the burden
of proof regarding its authenticity and relevance falls on the party presenting it. This
Page 19 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

ensures equal treatment before the law and similarly, the court can admit the
recommendations of the AI algorithm and use the other evidence to support its
authenticity and relevancy which ensures the equal treatment of all the people before the
law which ensures the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the constitution.
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryana that the use of an AI
algorithm to predict criminal behavior by analyzing vast amounts of databases and
criminal records promotes the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution of Aryana and provides equal treatment for all the communities in a rational
manner.

3
The case of Husainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar (1979)
The case of Lt. Colonel Maharaj Singh v. Union of India (1978)
Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution
Christopher Rigano, “Using Artificial Intelligence to Address Criminal Justice Needs,” NIJ Journal 280,
January 2019, https:// www.nij.gov/journals/280/Pages/using-artificialintelligence-to-address-criminal-
justice-needs.aspx
AI in criminal Justice; Methods & Concerns in crime detection and prevention in India (by Manoj Meena
& Aishvarya Joshi).
Chicago Police Predictive Policing Demonstration and Evaluation Project” at the Chicago Police
Department and Illinois Institute of Technology, NIJ award number 2011-IJ-CX-K014.
Page 20 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

IV. DOES THE USE OF AN AI ALGORITHM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISION-

MAKING RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND DUE PROCESS, AS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
ARYANA?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that human judges are
susceptible to unconscious biases based on factors like gender, caste, race, religion, and
socio-economic conditions but Raksha Vimarsh an AI algorithm is trained and designed
based on unbiased data and can analyze rationally and have the potential to eliminate the
human bias in the judicial proceeding which itself promotes transparency in criminal
justice decision making.
 It is submitted that incorporating AI algorithms in pretrial decisions can establish
consistency in decision-making by analyzing data of past offenses, recidivism rates, and
location-based crime data to predict the risk of future criminal activity and improve
standardized risk assessment and allows judges to see the factors considered by the AI
and make informed decisions with a clearer picture of the risk profile and provide same
sentence for similar cases regardless of judges or different jurisdiction which enhances
transparency in judicial proceedings.
 It is submitted that the recommendations of the Raksha Vimarsh an AI algorithm can be
considered as a piece of supplementary evidence and the judge will retain his discretion
in decision-making for bail hearings, pretrial detentions, and sentencing which increases
the responsibility of the judges to justify when he deviates from AI suggestions and this
strengthens the judicial accountability by holding the judge accountable for the decision
they make, promote transparency and fairness.
 It is submitted that by incorporating the AI algorithm we can able to identify the
individuals who have the highest chance of committing a crime in the future by analyzing
past offenses, criminal records, and location-based crime statistics which helps the
judiciary to allocate the resources more efficiently and to take preventive measures
according to it will ensure public safety and due process of law guaranteed by the
Constitution.

Page 21 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

 It is further submitted that AI algorithm has the potential to analyze the historical data
and criminal records during sentencing and bail hearings which helps the judges to
identify certain patterns and disparities based on factors like gender, caste, religion, and
socioeconomic backgrounds and helps to eliminate the potential biases which results in
fair sentencing and promote due process guaranteed by the constitution.
 It is submitted that Raksha Vimarsh an AI power legal aid tool can be used to provide
basic guidance and assistance to people who are not able to afford legal attorneys and
who don’t even have basic ideas about judicial proceedings by adopting such an AI
algorithm in judiciary we can increase the access to legal resources and ensure fair legal
system and enhance the due process guaranteed by the constitution.
 It is further submitted that Raksha Vimarsh an AI algorithm can help legal professionals
understand how the decisions are made by the AI algorithms and give a clear picture of
factors considered by the AI by releasing reports on Raksha Vimarsh's performance,
accuracy, and potential biases can improve the transparency guaranteed by constitution.
 It is submitted that the case State of Gujarat v. Forensic Technologies Pvt. Ltd the
Gujarat High Court validated the use of digital evidence, such as DNA profiles and
forensic software analyses, in criminal investigations, finding that its admission did not
unfairly target any suspect and enhanced the accuracy of forensic examinations under
Article 14. Similarly using AI algorithms to predict criminality behavior by analyzing the
criminal profiles and other databases will enhance the transparency and due process
guaranteed under Article 14 of the constitution.
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the use of an AI algorithm in
criminal justice decision-making reduces potential bias in pretrial detention, and data-
driven explanations, enhances judicial accountability, provides fair sentencing, promotes
transparency and due process, guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryana

Page 22 of 23
 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
National Moot Court Competition

PRAYER

In the light of legal precedents and principles cited, In the light of the provisions of
the constitution applied and argument advanced and in the light of the above premises, it is
prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased;

1.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS INDUTY

BOUND, EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

RESPONDENT

Page 23 of 23