IS ROBOT A LEGAL PERSON ? (2024)

The era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has gradually begun irrespective of the fact itis likedor not. Technology has permeated into every aspect of life and human activities are conveniently taken over by algorithms, computer programs and robots. From waking up to Siri’s news updates to falling asleep after binge watching the recommendations on Netflix, a technological revolution has begun. A Robot has 5 attributes which are internal knowledge, external knowledge, ability to communicate and some degree of creativity and intentionality.

In Feb 2019, Kerala Police inducted a robot into its ranks for its front office duties. In Chennai, robot-themed restaurantswere openedwhere robots not only serve but also communicate in both English and Tamil. In 2018, world’s first telerobotic coronary intervention on a patient has taken place in Ahmedabad. “Artificial Intelligence “can simply be defined as a decision–making ability of a machine by processing big data with the help of algorithms. This big data helps to develop the “Machine learning” or “thinking” of a machine.

It needs to be noted that the usage of AI will be counterproductivein the absence oflegal framework to regulate it. Being a transformative technology, it gives rise to innumerouslegal assumptions at all terms. The paramount consideration would be on the legal personality of the Robot. In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' that can do the things an everyday person can usually do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on. No law in Indiacurrentlyaddresses Robotsto belegal persons.The question ofconferring such legal title will also boil down to the subject of rights and duties. The capability of enjoying rights and performing duties are the exclusive characters for defining legal personality along with enforcing legal claims on breach of those rights.

The distinguishable factor which set apart any natural person from a Robot is the understanding of rules and norms governing the society and also the intention to be in compliant with them. An AI code would still mandate the Robots to comply with the set of rules but that doesn’t arise from an act of will and cannot enforce accountability

However, legal personhood is not only linked to human autonomy but is also vested on other artificial legal persons. A duly incorporated company is also a legal person in the eyes of law. Is it justifiable to compare the status of a machine and a Company? Corporations are controlled and managed bythe decision ofits stakeholders butwhereasRobots are actually autonomous. Its actionsmay not bein the control of the users or creator. Therefore, should the creator be held liable or the operator? Can we consider Robot as a minor and grant exemption for any liability for its actions?

Also, there is dissimilarity across legal system of various countries in recognizing the legal personhood of different entities. Idols are not considered as legal person in U.K unlike how it is been in India. Also, in 2017, Sofia, a robot was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia which contradicts the conditions of granting citizenship under Saudi Nationality System, 2018 by way of birth, marriage or naturalization. There will be a conflict both in sharia courts and original jurisdiction since the model of conduct is not specified.

Whereas, in 2017, a residence permit was also given for a chat bot, Shibuya Mirai under a special regulation in Japan varying the residence permit procedure in Japan. In either case the criteria of capacity or settledness was met. Countries should be quick to adapt to this pragmatic changes. U.K formed AI Committee in the House of Lords.U.S is not favorable in granting legal status to Robots as an individual and focusing on its legal definition.

Whereas, Russia has framed its draft bill, “Grishin Law”, for regulating the legal relation of robots. It categorizes Robots into two types according to its dualistic nature - Robots as property and agents vested with status of legal personality. It imposes liability on the robot’s developer, operator and also permits Robot’s representation in courts and other government agencies.

The legal and regulatory framework for Robots is still in embryonic stage with Central government directingNITIAayogin 2018 toinitiateprogrammes on AI and its applications. The government had also set up committees to draw a policy paper on sectors where AI could be a positiveenabler and on its ethical issues. In January 2020,NITIAayogrecommended a computer framework ‘AIRAWAT’ to aid the needs of start-ups, AI researchers and innovation hubs which showcases the positive influence of the government towards the use of AI.

In a nutshell, attributes of legal personhood are the following – (a) Should be subject to laws of land; (b) Have the ability to exercise rights and duties; and (c) Such an enjoyment should come from awareness and choice. Legislative reforms in terms of defining AI and its guide lined usage is the need of the hour.Therefore, granting legal personality to a Robot will have its own repercussions considering the scale of impact, lack of accountability by strictly adhering to the current law of land.

An article written by Reejhaa Muralidharan and Surekha Rao of Triangulas Business Consulting, LLP.