An individual attempted to disrupt an event addressed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant in London by suddenly raising an issue unrelated to the topic of discussion, which was Artificial Intelligence (AI). The incident occurred during an audience interaction at Birkbeck, University of London, where CJI Kant was delivering a lecture on 'Artificial Intelligence and International Law' on Thursday.
Videos circulating on social media showed an attendee expressing concern about what she described as 'growing hostility to dissent within India' while attempting to address a question to the CJI. However, an organizer immediately intervened, stating, 'With all due respect, I'm so sorry, I would not be able to take up that question since the topic is concerning artificial intelligence and international law. I am extremely sorry! We have to cut it off.'
High Commission Condemns Disruption
The High Commission of India in London on Friday condemned the disruption caused at the event. In a statement released on social media, the High Commission said, 'A lively discussion followed his address. Thereafter a certain individual tried to disrupt the event.' It further added, 'Such indecorous audience behavior is unacceptable and inconsistent with respectful engagement that should govern public discourse. Differences of opinion are a natural part of a democratic society. However, they must be expressed in a manner that is civil and respectful.'
CJI's Address on AI and International Law
Earlier, during his lecture, CJI Kant described artificial intelligence as an operational reality reshaping governance, commerce, warfare, communication, public administration, and the exercise of judicial and sovereign power. He emphasized that technological power must remain accountable to constitutional values, democratic legitimacy, and human dignity. He underlined that choices made during this decade will shape the future relationship between technology, power, freedom, and justice, posing one of the most significant tests for international law in its modern evolution.
'Technology itself is neither inherently benevolent nor inherently harmful. Its impact depends upon the legal, political, and ethical frameworks within which societies choose to deploy it. The responsibility of law, therefore, is neither to resist technological progress nor to surrender unquestioningly before it. Its responsibility is to ensure that technological power remains accountable to constitutional values, democratic legitimacy, and human dignity,' the CJI said.
Justice Kant noted that unlike previous technological revolutions, AI did not merely enhance human capacity; it increasingly participated in decision-making processes historically considered uniquely human. 'Governments now utilize algorithmic systems to allocate welfare benefits, assess immigration applications, monitor borders, regulate financial systems, and support policing functions. Militaries are rapidly developing autonomous capabilities. Courts across jurisdictions are beginning to confront questions involving AI-generated evidence, automated decision-making, and digital due process.'
Conference on India-UK Economic Partnership
On Friday, CJI Kant delivered the inaugural address at the Indian Council of Arbitration's (ICA) international conference on 'Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a Catalyst for Strengthening India-UK Economic Partnership.' Terming the India-UK free trade agreement an unquestionably historic moment for both nations, he stressed the need for a robust alternate dispute resolution architecture that converts commercial confidence into day-to-day practice.
Speaking at the fourth edition of the international conference on 'Arbitrating Indo-UK Commercial Disputes' organized by the Indian Council of Arbitration in London, CJI Kant said it must be ensured that arbitration is not a privilege of scale but an instrument of justice. He stated that contemporary international arbitration asks parties for a profound act of trust, and when they step away from their national courts and submit their dispute to a private tribunal, they are entitled to expect a process that is fair, proportionate, and timely.
