Editor’s note: Artificial intelligence’s fascinating intervention into law could just be disruptive, and thinking, writing about this is critical at this moment. AI is also, curiously, emerging as an instrument through which we can think more deeply about conundrums of legal thought and dealing with the complex legal framework in India. In this experimental piece, we get a glimpse into a conversation between senior advocate Mohan V. Katarki and Google’s Gemini AI on how India’s multilingual culture intersects with bold, anglican language of the law. In the fascinating discussion that follows, we note that in the backdrop of much fervour over the imposition of the Hindi language, the project of transitioning our courts from English to Indian languages will depend heavily on the technicalities of language. For instance, if laws written in Indian languages lack clarity because of absence of auxiliary verbs and because of verb coming at the end of sentence, it may contribute to litigation in our already overburdened courts.
THE “ART OF DRAFTING LAWS” is a specialised discipline that transforms abstract policy into concrete, enforceable legal texts. In a recent illuminating discussion, Senior Advocate Mohan Katarki engaged with Google Gemini AI to explore the nuances of this art, particularly in the context of India's multilingual legal system. The conversation honed in on how linguistic structures profoundly impact legal clarity and precision, revealing key challenges in transitioning from English to Indian languages like Hindi and Kannada.
The foundational principles of legal language
Both Mr. Katarki and Gemini emphasised that effective legal drafting demands clarity, precision, conciseness, consistency, coherence, and legal soundness. The ultimate goal is to create laws that are unambiguous and easily comprehensible to all stakeholders, from legal practitioners to the general public.
At its philosophical root, if law is conceived as a "command," then that command must be clear and easily identifiable to be just and effective. Ambiguity undermines its purpose, leading to misinterpretation and arbitrary enforcement. Laws serve both prohibitive forbidding actions, e.g., "thou shalt not steal") and permissive (granting rights or allowances, e.g., "citizens have the right to free speech") functions. Interestingly, even seemingly declarative legal provisions—such as definitions— implicitly carry prohibitive and permissive force. For example, defining "contract" implicitly prohibits agreements not meeting specified criteria from being legally binding.
The English "Shall" and "May": A standard of precision
The core of the linguistic challenge surfaced with the English auxiliary verbs "shall" and "may." In legal English, "shall" is typically interpreted as mandatory obligation or prohibition, allowing no discretion. Conversely, "may" invariably denotes permission, discretion, or power. This linguistic exactitude has been meticulously developed and legally cemented over centuries within common law jurisdictions, forming a unique and highly specialized "legal register."
