KJNMC 32P

TEAM CODE:–KJNMC
TEAM CODE KJNMC32

32
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PANDYA NADU
Ms. Mandodari..............................................................................Petitioner
V.
Mr. Isai Arasan..............................................................................Respondent
Mr. Karthikeyan............................................................................Respondent
Appropriate Authority of Sangam district..................................Respondent
APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1ST Kristu Jayanti National Moot Court Competition, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. 2
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................... 3
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................... 5
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................... 6
5. ISSUES RAISED ...................................................................................... 7
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................. 8
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................ 10

I. WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ CAN BE TREATED AS A LEGAL
PERSON WITH LEGAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS? .............. 10
1.1 Legal personhood is a dynamic concept ..................................................................... 10
1.2 Minimal difference between an AI and a humanoid .................................................. 12
1.3 Promoting technological breakthroughs ..................................................................... 12
II. WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL CAN BE NAMED AS AN

AUTHOR UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957? ........................................ 14
2.1 The definition is not comprehensive enough .............................................................. 14
2.2 Creative Intelligence of Agasthya .............................................................................. 15
III. WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL, CAN BE GRANTED

PERFORMER’S RIGHT UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957? .............. 17
3.1 Expansion of performer’s rights under the technological age .................................... 17
3.2 Performers rights are independent from legal personhood ......................................... 17
3.3 Application of Modicum of creativity ........................................................................ 18
IV. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

CAN IT BE CLAIMED AGAINST AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL? ................ 19
4.1 Agasthya is incapable of violating fundamental rights .............................................. 19
4.2 Hindering technological advancements ...................................................................... 19
8. PRAYER .................................................................................................. 21
1
Memorial for the Petitioner
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. NO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1. AI Artificial Intelligence
2. AIR All India Report
3. Anr. Another
4. Bom Bombay High Court
5. HON’BLE Honourable
6. i.e. That is
7. ILR Indian Law Report
8. Inc. Incorporated
9. NLP Natural Language Processing
10. Ors. Others
11. Sd/- Signed
12. SCC Supreme Court Cases
13. SCR Supreme Court Report
14. V./ Vs Versus
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Books:-
1. Elizabeth Verkey, Intellectual Property Law and Practice (Eastern Book Company,
2015)
2. Pankaj Jain and Pandey Sangeet Rai, Copyright and Trademark Laws relating to
Computers (Eastern Book Company, First Edition 2005)
Case Laws: -
1. Feist Publication Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
2. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v Lakhmiram Govindram 1887 SCC OnLine Bom 1: ILR
(1888) 12 Bom 247
3. Bishwanath and Anr. Vs Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors 1967 AIR 1044, 1967 SCR
(2) 618
4. Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1969 AIR 1089
5. Union Bank of India v. Khader International Constructions and Others (2001) 5 SCC
22
Statutes: -
1. The Copyright Act, 1950

2. The Information Technology Act, 2000
3. The Constitution of India, 1950
Websites: -
1. SSC Online- https://www.scconline.com/

2. Legal Service India- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
3. SC Observer- https://www.scobserver.in/
4. Law Octopus- https://www.lawctopus.com/
5. Lawyer Services- https://lawyerservices.in/
6. Indian Law Portal- https://indianlawportal.co.in/
7. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/427855/
8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3680079
3
9. https://www.javatpoint.com/nlp#What
10. https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-
Paper.pdf
11. https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyright_Rules_2013_and_Forms.pdf
12. https://www.ijllr.com/post/legal-personality-for-artificial-intelligence
13. https://indraprasthalawreview.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Paper-9-converted.pdf
14. https://jindaldigest.weebly.com/blog-781581/the-story-of-raghav-an-analysis-of-ai-
and-copyright-ownership
15. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3322640.3326701
4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pandya Nadu has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and
dispose of the present case by virtue of Article 136 of The Constitution of Pandya Nadu.
“Article 136 – Special Leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
Pandya Nadu.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces."
5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Pandya Nadu is a Federal Republic with traditional values and culture, and its agricultural
sector is a significant part of its economy. Pandya Nadu promotes innovations and creativity,
encouraging inventors and creators to explore the potential of their developments. Pandya Nadu
is a signatory to International Conventions and Treaties protecting Intellectual Property Rights
and has enacted laws to safeguard innovative and creative work.
Ms. Mandodari, born in Korkai Village, Sangam District, Dravida State, Pandya Nadu,
displayed a strong curiosity and interest in learning from a young age. After schooling, Ms.
Mandodari dropped out of 'Pandya Nadu Institution of Technology' to start her own start-up,
'Suryaloka,' a social networking application, which later failed.
She joined 'Dasis' as an intern and quickly excelled in her role due to her exceptional knowledge
of machines and technology. Ms. Mandodari's innovative skills led her to become a partner and
eventually the President of 'Dasis' at the age of 29.
In the year 2020, during her tenure at 'Dasis,' she invented 'Agasthya,' an AI tool, which evolved
into an autonomously operating neuronal network capable of generating new technical
solutions and creativities without supervision. 'Agasthya' uses techniques like Natural
Language Processing (NLP), voice synthesis, voice cloning, voice mimicry, and voice
imitations.
Ms. Mandodari hosted a party to showcase 'Agasthya' where it performed a song never sung
by Mr. Karthikeyan, a renowned singer, and the performance went viral on social media. She
filed an application to protect the creative works of 'Agasthya,' but it was rejected on the
grounds that the author and performer must be a natural person. Ms. Mandodari appealed to
the High Court of Dravida, which upheld the decision of the Appropriate Authorities. Left with
no alternative remedies, Ms. Mandodari appealed to the Supreme Court of Pandya Nadu.
Additionally, a civil suit for infringement was filed against Ms. Mandodari for allegedly
copying the music composition of Mr. Isai Arasan using AI before the City Civil Court of
Sangam. Mr. Karthikeyan filed a complaint under the Information and Technology Act, 2000,
alleging a violation of his Right to Privacy, as 'Agasthya' imitated his voice without his consent.
6
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I
WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ CAN BE TREATED AS A LEGAL

PERSON WITH LEGAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS?
ISSUE II
WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL CAN BE NAMED AS AN

AUTHOR UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957?
ISSUE III
WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL, CAN BE GRANTED

PERFORMER’S RIGHT UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957?
ISSUE IV
WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

AND CAN IT BE CLAIMED AGAINST AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL?
7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE – I

The council argues that Agasthya, an AI, should be treated as a legal person with legal rights
and obligations. They cite legal precedents recognizing non-human entities such as Hindu idols
and rivers as legal persons in certain cases, demonstrating the evolving nature of legal
personhood. They also point to the legal recognition of humanoid robots like Sophia in Saudi
Arabia, highlighting the minimal differences between AI and such robots. Granting legal
personhood to Agasthya, the council asserts, would promote technological advancements,
encourage AI research, and provide a framework to address legal challenges arising from AI's
integration into society. They emphasize that recognizing Agasthya as a legal person
acknowledges its unique legal status while preserving human rights and ethical considerations.
Overall, the council contends that extending legal personhood to AI like Agasthya would foster
responsible AI development and innovation without compromising the rights of natural
persons.
ISSUE – II

The petitioner argues that the AI tool, Agasthya, should be classified as an author under the
Copyright Act, 1957. They contend that the current definition of an author is not
comprehensive enough to include AI tools. While the Act addresses computer-generated
works, it was codified in an era where AI technology was fiction, making it essential to interpret
the law in the context of technological advancements. Agasthya exhibits creative intelligence
as it can autonomously produce original pieces of art without specific instructions. Similar
recognition of AI authorship has been observed in China and India. The petitioner further
asserts that AI does not replicate substantial aspects of original works but rather analyzes and
correlates data, which should not lead to a monopoly on electro-magnetic blueprints and sound
waves. Therefore, they urge the court to classify Agasthya as an author under the Copyright
Act.
8
ISSUE- III

The petitioner seeks to grant performer's rights under The Copyright Act, 1957, to the AI tool
'Agasthya.' They argue that as technology evolves, the law must adapt to recognize and protect
the creative contributions made by new entities like AI tools. While AI lacks personhood,
copyright protection has been extended to corporations and entities that commission creative
works. The petitioner contends that Agasthya exhibits a "modicum of creativity" by
autonomously composing music and generating original lyrics using advanced voice-based
models, justifying its eligibility for copyright protection. The recognition of performer's rights
for Agasthya would acknowledge its role in the digital age and ensure that technological
advancements are duly safeguarded.
ISSUE – IV

The council argues that Agasthya, an AI tool, cannot be held accountable for any fundamental
rights infringement as it lacks consciousness, intent, and subjective experiences. Being an
artificial creation, it operates solely based on algorithms and inputs, devoid of human-like
desires or motivations. Therefore, it is incapable of comprehending fundamental rights or
intentionally violating them. Imposing liability on AI systems like Agasthya may hinder
technological advancements and innovation in the field of AI, as researchers and developers
might become overly cautious or risk-averse, impeding the exploration of new possibilities.
Striking a balance between safeguarding fundamental rights and fostering a conducive
environment for AI development is essential to benefit from its potential breakthroughs.
9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE – I

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Agasthya, an AI, be treated as a legal
person with legal writes and legal obligations. To sustain the presented argument, the council
would primarily prefer to shed some light on the following matters.
1.1 Legal personhood is a dynamic concept
In the Dakor Temple Case1 (1887) the court held that: “Hindu idol is a juridical subject and the
pious idea that it embodies is given the status of a legal person.”
In Bishwanath and Anr. Vs Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors2. (1967) the court held that fs a
shebait does not discharge their duties properly, a devotee can move court as ‘friend of the
deity’.
Both judgements indicate the rights of a deity and legal recognition of it under the Indian Laws,
despite that a deity is equally removed in being present in physical form, barring their idols,
and even more removed from being able to perform or execute human-like activities like
creative performance, interactive abilities, etc. as compared to an AI.
In another case of Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1969), the
Supreme Court ruled:
“It is not all idols that will qualify for being juristic person but only when it is consecrated and
installed at a public place for the public at large.”
1
Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v Lakhmiram Govindram 1887 SCC OnLine Bom 1: ILR (1888) 12 Bom 247
2
Bishwanath and Anr. Vs Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors 1967 AIR 1044, 1967 SCR (2) 618
3
Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1969 AIR 1089
10
Given that such be a relevant standard, then Agasthya, the AI, is installed at a public place at
large, given that any public can access the AI.
In the case of Union Bank of India v. Khader International Constructions and Others (2001)4,
The Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” referred to in Order 33, Rule 1, Code of Civil
Procedure5, includes any company, association, or corporation as an individual, whether
incorporated or not. The Court held that the word “person” must be given its meaning in the
context in which it was used, and being a benevolent provision, it was to be given an extended
meaning. In essence, a company can file a suit as an indigene or poor person.
Worldwide, 369 initiatives have been launched aimed at granting rights to nature 6. In 2017,
after multiple decades, the Whanganui River Pact was agreed upon between the government of
New Zealand and Māori tribes. Part hereof was the recognition of the River as a legal person.
The River was recognised as a living entity and an ancestor and life force of the tribe. The
River now possesses the rights, duties, powers and liabilities of a legal person, whose rights
can be judicially enforced by guardians appointed in the law7.
In 2019, the High Court of Bangladesh recognised that the river was a living entity and granted
legal personhood to the River. 8The High Court indicated that the same decision applied to all
rivers in Bangladesh.
The concept of legal personhood has evolved over time to adapt to the changing dynamics of
society and technological advancements. Traditionally, legal personhood was confined to
natural persons, i.e., human beings. However, as the law progresses, it recognizes the need to
embrace new categories of entities that possess capabilities akin to natural persons. The court
must recognize the importance of inclusivity in defining legal personhood and acknowledge
the need to safeguard the rights of all individuals, irrespective of their backgrounds.
4
Union Bank of India v. Khader International Constructions and Others (2001) 5 SCC 22
5
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
6
Putzer A, Lambooy T, Jeurissen R (forthcoming 2021)
7
Argyrou A, Hummels H 2019 Legal personality and economic livelihood of the Whanganui River: a call for
community entrepreneurship Water International 44(6-7) 752-768
8
Bangladesh Supreme Court, High Court Division, Begum S 2020 Unofficial Translation of the verdict
“Declaring Turag River as a Legal Person” pp 1, 277-283
11
1.2 Minimal difference between an AI and a humanoid
the council would prefer to draw the court’s attention towards the humanoid robot named
Sophia, who was granted citizenship and certain level of legal rights as a legal person in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in October of year 20179.
Given that an AI software differs from a humanoid robot mainly based on physical attributes
and abilities and expertise over certain field, it becomes entirely plausible to provide legal
recognition to Artificial Intelligence such as Agasthya.
1.3 Promoting technological breakthroughs
Granting Agasthya legal personhood would provide a strong incentive for further research and
development in the field of Artificial Intelligence. It would encourage innovation and draw
investments in cutting-edge technologies, resulting in societal progress and economic
prosperity, if AI entities like Agasthya were recognized as legal persons.
The Legislative Resolution of the European Parliament highlights the need for legal
personhood to govern the rights and responsibilities of AI entities10. By acknowledging
Agasthya as a legal person, we lay the groundwork for addressing legal challenges and
responsibilities arising from the intersection of AI and human society.
Being acknowledged as a legal person does not provide Agasthya human personality; rather, it
acknowledges its distinct legal position and status inside the legal system. Giving AI entities
like Agasthya legal personality would allow for the prudent and advantageous use of AI
technology while preserving and protecting ethical issues and human rights.
In conclusion, recognizing Agasthya as a legal person with legal rights and legal obligations is
justified by its evolving capabilities. Granting legal personhood to AI entities like Agasthya
9
Retto, Jesus. (2017). SOPHIA, FIRST CITIZEN ROBOT OF THE WORLD
10
Legislative Resolution of the European Parliament, 2017/2069(INL)
12
will not compromise the inherent rights of natural persons but rather foster innovation and
responsible AI development in the modern world. The law must adapt to embrace
advancements in technology and provide a forward-looking approach to ensure justice and
fairness in the age of Artificial Intelligence.
13
ISSUE – II

This honorable court is respectfully urged that the AI "Agasthya" should be classified as an
author under the copyright act, 195711.
In order to support the aforementioned claim, the petitioner wishes to submit the following
points.
2.1 The definition is not comprehensive enough

It is being contended before the hon’ble court that Agasthya, the AI tool, be named as an author
under The Copyright Act, 195712.
As per Section 2 (d) (ii)13, an author, in relation to a musical work, is the composer of said
musical work. And as per the Oxford dictionary, the word composer means ‘a person who
writes music, especially under a professional occupation’ and since the term person includes
both natural as well as the legal person under the law, the council is of such humble opinion
that Agasthya, the AI tool, be considered an author under the Copyright Act, 195714.
Additionally, the council would also like to draw attention of the hon’ble court towards Section
2 (d) (vi), as amended in year 199415, which speak of author of a computer-generated works.
The council is of such opinion that the amendment, although clearly addressing the authorship
of works which are computer-generated, were codified during an age where AI was but a mere
11
THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 ACT NO. 14 OF 1957
12
Ibid
13
Ibid
14
Ibid
15
Subs. by Act 38 of 1994, s. 2, for sub-clauses (v) and (vi) (w.e.f. 10-5-1995)
14
fiction and to consider the ability of the computers to generate any work, either through
software or hardware, on its own accord was as good as impossible.
Over time, copyright legislation has changed to reflect advances in technology. Although the
Copyright Act of 1957 does not specifically mention AI tools as authors, the law has changed
to allow for new types of artistic expression. Computer-generated works have received
copyright protection from courts in a number of jurisdictions when they demonstrate enough
creative thinking.
Hence, it is essential for the court to read the said clause only in the light of the technological
advancements and capabilities of that time and to spare the current case from being subjected
to same, since the work generated by Agasthya, although computer-generated, is a piece of
creative artwork which requires no more human assistance than independent artist would.
2.2 Creative Intelligence of Agasthya
Agasthya is a piece of AI software that Ms. Mandodari created. It was initially intended to use
algorithms to enhance and evolve higher-level performance. It has developed over time and
now performs jobs using Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods like Recurrent Neural
Networks (RNNs) or Transformer Models (TM). These technological developments have
transformed Agasthya into an autonomously running neural network that can provide
innovative technical ideas and creative solutions without being given specific objectives. This
indicates that Agasthya is capable of working alone and without supervision.
While Ms. Mandodari's algorithms and programming methodologies gave Agasthya its
creative intelligence, its capacity to independently produce fresh and original pieces of art sets
it apart from a mere tool that follows established instructions. Given that it is exhibiting a type
of creativity and expression that is typically associated with human authors, this level of
autonomous creativity begs the question of whether Agasthya can be regarded as an author.
15
China appears to have recognised that copyright may exist in AI-created works when, in
January 2020, a court in Shenzhen, China, afforded copyright protection to articles generated
by the AI, Dreamwriter.16
For the first time ever in India, the copyright office has recognised an AI tool – RAGHAV
Artificial Intelligence Painting App 17– as the co-author of a copyright-protected artistic work.
Ankit Sahni, an IP lawyer who owns the AI-based app, is the other author and is registered as
the copyright owner. He commissioned the painting in question, ‘Suryast’, and even believes
that India might be the first country to have acknowledged AI-authorship in a copyrighted
work. Sahni had filed two copyright applications for two AI-generated artworks, claiming
himself as the owner. The copyright office rejected the first application, which listed RAGHAV
as the sole author. The second application, on which both Sahni and the AI were named as co-
authors, was granted registration in November 2020.
To establish copyright infringement, two factors must be proven. First, the AI program must
have had access to the original work, which can be demonstrated if the AI was trained using
the underlying work. Second, the new work generated by the AI must be "substantially
similar" to the original work. 18
It must be noted that although AI gains access to the original work at times, but it does not
necessarily replicate the original work and merely uses it as a reference tool, just like another
natural person would. Further, AI does not replicate the substantial aspects of a work but only
analyses, combines and correlates the electro-magnetic blueprints of the digital work in cases
of musical performance. It is contended before this court that no person, by the virtue of
sounding a certain way, be given monopoly of such electro-magnetic blueprint and sound
waves and to not hold AI accountable under copyright laws for imitating the same up to any
extent.
16
Nanshan District People’s Court, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, (2019) Yue 0305 Min Chu No. 14010 Civil
Judgment. November 24, 2019.
17
Sukanya Sarkar, Exclusive: India recognises AI as co-author of copyrighted artwork, MANAGING IP, Aug.
2021, https://www.managingip.com/article/b1t0hfz2bytx44/exclusive-india-recognises-ai-as-coauthor-of-
copyrighted-artwork
18
Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10922
16
ISSUE- III

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the AI tool ‘Agasthya’ be granted
performer's right under The Copyright Act, 1957.
In order to support the above contention, the petitioner would like to present the following
arguments.
3.1 Expansion of performer’s rights under the technological age
In earlier times, the role of the individual in broadcasting the content was not recognized. In
the year 1961, with the enactment of the Rome Convention19, the concept of performer rights
was accorded recognition. As per the terms of this Convention performers works were
protected for the duration of 20 years.
The Copyright Act, 1957, was enacted before the advent of AI and the digital age. As
technology continues to evolve, the law must adapt to recognize and protect the contributions
made by new entities, including AI tools like Agasthya. By granting performer's rights to
Agasthya, we acknowledge its role in creating and performing music compositions, thereby
ensuring that technological advancements are duly recognized and protected.
The digital age has brought about significant changes in the way creative works are produced,
distributed, and consumed. With the rapid advancement of technology, including the
emergence of AI, the traditional concept of performer's rights has undergone evolution to adapt
to the new challenges and opportunities presented by the digital landscape.
3.2 Performers rights are independent from legal personhood
While machines, including AI, currently lack personhood and corresponding legal standing, it
does not per se warrant the ascription of copyright to the artificial entity itself. Nevertheless,
the absence of personhood does not necessarily preclude the applicability of copyright
protection.
19
The Rome Convention, 496 U.N.T.S 43
17
Copyright ownership is not exclusively confined to natural persons, as corporations are

considered juridical persons and may acquire copyright for works, they have not directly
authored. This is evident in instances where film studios engage a production team to craft a
movie or when websites contract journalists to pen articles. Hence, it is plausible that copyright
could vest in the entity (whether a corporation or an individual) that effectively commissions
the AI to generate creative outputs on its behalf.
3.3 Application of Modicum of creativity
The transition from the traditional Sweat of the Brow doctrine 20to the contemporary "modicum
of creativity" doctrine has been instrumental in redefining the notion of "originality." The
seminal case of Feist Publication Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service 21marked a pivotal moment
in jurisprudence where the US Supreme Court repudiated the notion that mere labour and effort
invested in assembling information could not qualify for copyright protection. Instead, the
Court held that a work must not only be the product of independent creation but must also
exhibit a "modicum of creativity" to meet the threshold for originality.
Recent technological advancements have propelled Agasthya's capabilities to unprecedented

heights. Through the elimination of manual instructions and the introduction of premium
iterations, Agasthya can now autonomously compose music and generate original lyrics.
Leveraging sophisticated techniques like voice synthesis, voice cloning, voice mimicry, and
voice imitations, Agasthya employs voice-based models to emulate singers' vocal qualities,
effectively generating remarkably realistic musical compositions and performances.
The "modicum of creativity" doctrine mandates that originality subsists in a work only if it
demonstrates a requisite level of intellectual creativity and judgment during its conception.
Although the standard of creativity remains relatively low, there must exist a minimal degree
of creative authorship for a work to warrant copyright safeguard.
Hailshree Saksena, DOCTRINE OF “SWEAT OF THE

20
BROW” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1398303)
21
Feist Publication Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
18
ISSUE – IV

The council would like to make the case on behalf of the petitioner that there was no
fundamental rights infringement and that Agasthya, an AI tool, cannot be held accountable.
The idea of fundamental rights is to safeguard the rights and freedoms of natural beings.
Agasthya, being an artificial creation without consciousness or intent, lacks the capacity to
violate fundamental rights.
4.1 Agasthya is incapable of violating fundamental rights
The purposeful reason or drive behind an action is known as intent. Intentions, desires, and
beliefs frequently act as the catalyst for human behaviour. Agasthya, in contrast, lacks desires,
motivations, or intents because it lacks subjective experiences to guide its behaviour.
Agasthya is incapable of comprehending the nature of fundamental rights, much less wilfully
violating them, because it lacks will. Without any human judgment, any acts it makes are solely
the outcome of the algorithms and the inputs it is given.
AI systems like Agasthya are made to mimic human intelligence and carry out particular tasks
with a high degree of precision. However, they are not naturally capable of thinking, feeling,
or making decisions on their own like humans are. They lack the intricacy of human cognition
and decision-making, and their "intelligence" is restricted to pattern recognition and data
processing.
4.2 Hindering technological advancements
Agasthya and other AI technologies have the potential to revolutionize many sectors and
improve human capabilities. Concerns about the potential effects on innovation and
technological advancement arise from the idea of holding AI tools personally accountable for
violations of fundamental rights.
19
Encouragement of innovation is crucial for expanding the capabilities of AI because the area
is always developing. The fear of potential legal repercussions may prevent researchers and
developers from exploring new possibilities if AI technologies are held accountable. An
environment that encourages experimentation and learning from mistakes is conducive to
innovation.
The development of cutting-edge technology may be stifled by excessive regulation of AI tools.

To ensure that society can gain from the potential breakthroughs AI can offer, it is essential to
strike a balance between defending fundamental liberties and allowing for experimentation.
AI might become extremely cautious or risk-averse, which would prevent it from discovering
new and perhaps useful applications. This might inhibit innovation and advancement in the
study of and development of AI. Imposing direct liability on AI tools may not be the most
effective way to enforce ethical standards.
20
PRAYER
Whereof in the light of facts of the instant case, written pleadings and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that it may be pleased to hold, adjudge
and declare:
1. To set aside the decision of the sessions court and the high court.
2. To acquit the appellant from all the charges imposed on him.
3. To give Agasthya status of a legal person.
4. To recognize Agasthya as an author.
5. To recognize Agasthya as a performer.
Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of the facts of the case, evidences
adduced and justice, equity and good conscience.
Sd/-
Counsels for the Petitioner
21

KJNMC 32P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KJNMC 32P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE:–KJNMC

TEAM CODE KJNMC32

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PANDYA NADU

Mr. Isai Arasan..............................................................................Respondent

Appropriate Authority of Sangam district..................................Respondent

APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. 2

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

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................... 6

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

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

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................ 10

1.2 Minimal difference between an AI and a humanoid .................................................. 12

1.3 Promoting technological breakthroughs ..................................................................... 12

II. WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL CAN BE NAMED AS AN

2.2 Creative Intelligence of Agasthya .............................................................................. 15

III. WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL, CAN BE GRANTED

3.2 Performers rights are independent from legal personhood ......................................... 17

3.3 Application of Modicum of creativity ........................................................................ 18

IV. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

4.2 Hindering technological advancements ...................................................................... 19

S. NO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1. The Copyright Act, 1950

1. SSC Online- https://www.scconline.com/

“Article 136 – Special Leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ CAN BE TREATED AS A LEGAL

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL CAN BE NAMED AS AN

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL, CAN BE GRANTED

WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ CAN BE TREATED AS A LEGAL

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL CAN BE NAMED AS AN

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL, CAN BE GRANTED

WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ CAN BE TREATED AS A LEGAL

1.1 Legal personhood is a dynamic concept

1.2 Minimal difference between an AI and a humanoid

1.3 Promoting technological breakthroughs

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL CAN BE NAMED AS AN

2.1 The definition is not comprehensive enough

2.2 Creative Intelligence of Agasthya

WHETHER AGASTHYA, AN ‘AI’ TOOL, CAN BE GRANTED

3.1 Expansion of performer’s rights under the technological age

3.2 Performers rights are independent from legal personhood

Copyright ownership is not exclusively confined to natural persons, as corporations are

3.3 Application of Modicum of creativity

Recent technological advancements have propelled Agasthya's capabilities to unprecedented

Hailshree Saksena, DOCTRINE OF “SWEAT OF THE

WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

4.1 Agasthya is incapable of violating fundamental rights

4.2 Hindering technological advancements

The development of cutting-edge technology may be stifled by excessive regulation of AI tools.

adduced and justice, equity and good conscience.

You might also like