Video: CJI Surya Kant Asked About Growing Hostilities To Dissent Within India & His Comments In London

New Delhi: A intense exchange spilled out at an event conducted by Birkbeck College, University of London, where Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was the primary speaker, after several participants attempted to raise questions concerning dissent in India during an interaction session following his speech.

CJI Kant was delivering a lecture on "Artificial Intelligence and International Law" as part of his ongoing six-day visit to the United Kingdom.

Videos from the event, including clips of the exchange and an attendee shouting, “Give us some respect please!”, were later shared on social media by Saurav Das, chief spokesperson of the online movement Cockroach Janta Party.   

The organization has announced a protest in Delhi on June 6 in response to recent exam-related scandals in India. Its name refers to remarks made by the CJI last month, when he used the terms "cockroaches" and "parasites" while discussing false degree holders and “unemployed youth becoming activists.”

What Was the Question?

According to video recordings posted online, the exchange began when an attendee addressed the Chief Justice during the interactive session that followed his lecture. 

She said: “His Lordship made some very important points, I think, about the Indian track record of protecting democracy in the context of AI.”

She then continued: "We now hear from a number of legal observers within the country as well as internationally that there's a great deal of concern about growing hostility to dissent within India. And it does seem that this hostility is somewhat reflected in His Lordship's speech and it's very well publicised," referring apparently to his recent remarks.

Before she could complete her question, a person seated on the stage intervened and said:

“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. So sorry. I'm extremely sorry, I'm extremely sorry. We'll have to cut it off.”

The clip ends at that point. In another video circulating online, another attendee can be seen objecting to the interruption and demanding respect, shouting, “Give us some respect please!”

What Did the CJI Say in His Lecture?

During his speech, CJI Kant discussed the difficulties faced by artificial intelligence and the role of international law in tackling them. He stated that the decisions taken this decade will have an impact on the future interaction between technology, power, freedom, and justice.

“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,” he said.

The Chief Justice also called artificial intelligence as one of the most significant challenges to international law in recent times.

“The central challenge before us is to ensure that, in an age of intelligent machines, humanity retains authorship of the principles by which it is governed. If international law can rise to that challenge, artificial intelligence may become not merely a technological revolution, but an opportunity to reaffirm the values that lie at the foundation of democratic civilisation itself.”

Thanking Birkbeck College for organizing the event, he stated that moments of significant technological innovation necessitate ongoing communication among courts, universities, governments, and civil society organizations.

"Ultimately, the future of artificial intelligence will be shaped not only by innovation but by the legal and moral choices that humanity collectively chooses to make," he said.

He went on to say that the international community has the difficulty of sustaining legal responsibility in systems where decision-making has a growing impact by algorithms, rather than just limiting technological capabilities. He added that if responsibility becomes too fragmented to identify, accountability itself risks becoming illusory.