Hitesh Jain, Managing Partner at Parinam Law Associates, recently addressed an audience at Symbiosis Law School in Pune, emphasizing India’s shifting stance on artificial intelligence governance. Speaking on the topic “AI, Law, and the Future of Justice in India,”, Jain highlighted the urgent need for regulatory clarity and professional responsibility as AI technology advances. This event was organized by Pravah Law Forum, aiming to inform students and legal professionals about the implications of AI in the legal sector.
Jain began his remarks by reflecting on the rapid evolution of technology, noting that within a single professional lifetime, society has transitioned from early desktop computing to complex discussions about artificial intelligence. This transformation, he asserted, necessitates that lawyers, regulators, and policymakers reassess their roles in an ever-evolving landscape.
For much of the past decade, India has followed a “wait and watch” approach toward regulating emerging technologies. However, Jain stated that this posture has now matured into a calibrated, pro-growth governance model. He contrasted India’s balanced methodology with the European Union’s prescriptive measures and the United States’ market-driven strategies, suggesting that India views innovation not as a threat but as a tool for development, inclusion, and scalability.
“Innovation and safety are not opposing objectives,” Jain contended, advocating for regulation that fosters innovation while ensuring safety. He proposed an outcome-based and risk-proportionate regulatory framework, focusing on tangible harms rather than the underlying mathematics of AI systems. Policymakers, he argued, should prioritize preventing misuse, such as deepfakes, by concentrating on measurable outcomes. The critical question, he suggested, is not “what could go wrong?” but rather “what must we design so things go right?”
Jain outlined the characteristics of agile governance, emphasizing that broad principles should be embedded in legislation, while technical standards and compliance measures should be addressed through subordinate legislation that can adapt alongside technological advancements. He warned that rigid statutory frameworks could quickly become outdated, especially given the rapid progress of large language models. Regulatory sandboxes, he noted, are vital for this governance structure, allowing innovators to assess and refine their solutions in supervised environments before facing any punitive actions. “Sandbox first, criminalisation last,” he remarked, illustrating the difference between enabling and punitive governance.
When asked if India needs a new AI statute, Jain responded emphatically: not yet. He believes that existing legal frameworks governing information technology, data protection, consumer protection, and criminal liability are adequate for regulating AI applications when interpreted purposefully and enforced consistently.
Turning to the legal profession, Jain referenced a recent judgment from the Bombay High Court that highlighted the perils of AI-generated arguments. The Court had to address submissions filled with fabricated citations and non-existent precedents, wasting valuable judicial time. This incident, Jain remarked, underscores the increased accountability lawyers face when utilizing AI tools. He stressed the necessity of human oversight in the legal process.
Rejecting the narrative of “AI versus lawyers,” Jain envisioned a hybrid model for the future of legal practice. In this framework, AI would handle high-volume tasks such as research, summarization, and transcription, while lawyers would provide essential components like judgment, strategy, ethical reasoning, and empathy. He encouraged students to embrace AI both as a junior assistant for drafting and synthesizing research and as a senior consultant capable of testing arguments and identifying inconsistencies. The key skill lies in knowing when to trust, question, and override AI systems.
One notable impact of AI, Jain pointed out, is the democratization of legal competence. Smaller firms in Tier-2 cities now have access to research capabilities comparable to those of larger, global practices. Additionally, lawyers who may not be fluent in English can draft sophisticated documents more accurately. However, he warned that this increased access brings with it a new level of responsibility. If AI equips everyone with tools for competence, then excellence will be defined by discernment and judgment rather than mere access to information.
Concluding his address, Jain characterized this moment as one of extraordinary significance, suggesting that the legal frameworks developed today will shape the governance of artificial intelligence for generations. India, he asserted, has transitioned from a stance of “wait and watch” to “build and lead.” As AI technology continues to evolve, Jain emphasized the importance of maintaining agile and principled legal frameworks.
See also
OpenAI’s Rogue AI Safeguards: Decoding the 2025 Safety Revolution
US AI Developments in 2025 Set Stage for 2026 Compliance Challenges and Strategies
Trump Drafts Executive Order to Block State AI Regulations, Centralizing Authority Under Federal Control
California Court Rules AI Misuse Heightens Lawyer’s Responsibilities in Noland Case
Policymakers Urged to Establish Comprehensive Regulations for AI in Mental Health
