Legal Summarization - A New Frontier to treat Legal Terminology (NLP)

This article throws some light on my research work, to examine the potential of machine learning in legal, finance, and other sectors. The efforts are meant to decentralize the legal and finance sectors in order to make them accessible and affordable. This entire work is to improve the use of Artificial Intelligence in the day to day work and restricting human interference to a mere review before approval. In the current update, I share one such use case which I have identified and tested for development purposes. This would essentially decentralize and empower the legal system to fight the language barriers.

Problem:

There is a huge vacuum created by the legal terminology which distances the general public from understanding judgments. The problem I intend to solve is to make the judgments and observations of the court understandable for non-professionals by using machine learning. 

Category of ML used: Natural Language Processing (NLP) - Model by OpenAI

Model Name: Generative Pre-trained Transformer - 3 (A closely held model)

Input:

Judgment of Rajasthan High Court in a recent case - Risha Lodha Vs. ICAI 

Here is the link for the readers to access the original judgment: https://taxguru.in/chartered-accountant/withholding-ca-student-result-criticism-icai-hc-grants-relief.html

Output:

Summary for the Common Man:

The institute, which has the authority to grant the degree, has decided to cancel the result of the student, who has sent an email to a teacher. This decision was taken by the committee without giving any opportunity to the student. By canceling the result, she will not be able to get the degree, which she is entitled to. She has been punished without giving her any chance to defend her case. This teacher is a member of the committee who took this decision. In court's opinion, it is clear that there was a conspiracy between the teacher and other committee members to punish the student. The student has not been given any opportunity to defend herself. Even though she wrote a 3-page reply, nobody took any notice of it and still decided to cancel her result. It is clear that there was no examination held in which she can be found guilty. She is entitled to get a degree because she has been passing all her examinations till then and had even appeared for her final examination. But because of this college’s decision she cannot get her degree. She has been punished because she sent an email to one of her teachers suggesting reforms in their examination process. In court's opinion this punishment is illegal because the institute has not given her any chance to defend herself.

Summary for the Professionals:

The Institute is a very powerful organization. It has the power to make or break the career of a student. It has the power to elevate or destroy the life of a student. It has the power to uplift or destroy the life of a student. The Institute is required to practice greater restraint in invoking its powers especially against the students. Instant case called for not just restraint but absolute abstinence from initiating any action against the petitioner, particularly when she had submitted a beseeching response. But for the reasons best known to the Examination Committee, instead of burrying the hatchet, it literally opened a battle-front and issued a notice to the petitioner on 7.3.2021 and summoned her to Jaipur to defend her cause in furtherance of the notice dated 22.2.2021(vide which, the Institute had called upon the petitioner to explain why disciplinary proceedings not be initiated against her for derogatory remarks she had made).

The impugned decision cancelling petitioner’s result is nothing short of colourable exercise of powers. It also showcases vindictiveness of respondent Committee. The petitioner had sent the contentious e-mail on 20.11.2020 whereafter on 22.11.2020 the respondent’s counsel sent a notice to the petitioner on her email. A perusal of the substance of the notice leaves no manner of doubt that respondent-Institute had warned petitioner of dire consequences, if she further indulged in addressing any such communication to ICAI or any other organization concerning examinations. Indisputably, petitioner has not written even a single letter to Institute or to any other authority after 20.11.2020. Neither there is anything on record nor is it case of respondents that petitioner has ever communicated with Institute or published anything on any public platform regarding examination or manner in which examinations were held by Institute. The respondent-Institute, therefore bound by its own notice was estopped from initiating any action much less disciplinary proceedings with respect to petitioner’s e-mail dated 20.11.2020

In opinion this Court, impugned proceedings were, therefore, fundamentally without any basis besides being arbitrary and are liable to be quashed.

Conclusion:

The above two summaries are the direct processing of the observations made by the court in the mentioned judgment. The difference can clearly visible for the readers in generated text with different metrics meant for different sets of people.