Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligence and the Liability Argument

Today, Artificial Intelligence enabled computers, devices, bots, robots etc. are much more sophisticated with enhanced capabilities, with features like machine learning and potential for deep learning, with patters similar to neural networks in human brains, and it is claimed that Artificial Intelligence far exceeds human intelligence in some specific tasks, especially the ones involving computations. The use of Artificial Intelligence has significantly increased in most sectors of the economy, e.g. industrial robots are commonly being used in manufacturing units. Skilled robots are rendering their services in hospitals and restaurants. Sophisticated technology is being used in medical and healthcare sector where Artificial Intelligence enabled robots or machines are performing surgeries. Significant financial trading is being carried out by use of Artificial Intelligence. The music industry is witnessing music being created by Artificial Intelligence. Weaponry is being enabled with Artificial Intelligence. Lawyers and law firms in some of the developed nations are using Artificial Intelligence enabled products to review voluminous documents for purposes of discovery and/or due diligence, filing taxes, etc. and there are several legal expert systems which have been developed to assist lawyers and judges.
The rapid advancement of technology, including drones, driverless and autonomous vehicles, has indeed transformed our world. However, the legal landscape in the world, particularly India, is still catching up with these developments. The legal systems need to evolve to address the concept of legal personhood of A.I. and determine the liability for harm or injury caused by A.I. enabled devices. In this paper, the author will attempt to explore some of the most important legal issues including but not limited to personhood/ autonomy/ agency or whether A.I. can be treated as a subject under the law. The author will also briefly discuss the question and nature of liability to be imposed in the event use of A.I. results in harm or injury to human beings.

Artificial Intelligence, drones, driverless vehicles, legal personhood, liability, harm, injury, autonomy, agency

1. [1]‘Personhood’ (Oxford Reference, 31 August 2011) https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095426960 accessed 23 March 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. [2] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. [3] Artificial Intelligence’ (Free Law Dictionary) http://www.freelawdictionary.org/?s=artificial+intelligence accessed 23 March 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. [4] John McCarthy and others, ‘A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence’ (2006) 27(4) AI Magazine 12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. [5] Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2014). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. [6] European Parliament Resolution of 16 February 2017 with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) P8_TA(2017)0051. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. [7] Visa AJ Kurki, A Theory of Legal Personhood (Oxford University Press 2019) ch 2 https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844037.003.0002 accessed 24 June 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. [8] Concept of Personhood’ (Center for Health Ethics, University of Missouri School of Medicine) https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/personhood accessed 24 June 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. [9] Supra note 9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. [10] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. [11] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. [12] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. [13] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. [14] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. [15] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. [16] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. [17] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. [18] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. [19] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. [20] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. [21] Arghya Sen, Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems A Legal Perspective on Granting Personhood and Implications of Such a Decision, DME Journal of Law, 4(1), 15-26. doi: 10.53361/dmejl.v4i01.03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. [22] Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, St.Paul Minn., West Publishing Co. 1968 (https://heimatundrecht.de/sites/default/files/dokumente/Black%27sLaw4th.pdf, accessed on 24 June 2024) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. [23] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. [24] Section 19, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“The word "man" denotes a male human being of any age; the word "woman" denotes a female human being of any age.”). Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines ‘man’ and ‘woman’ under Section 10, IPC. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. [25] Section 26, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“The word "person" includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.”). Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines ‘person’ under Section 11, IPC. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. [26] Section 2(31), Income Tax Act, 1961. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. [27] Section 2(zg), The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. [28] Section 2(31), Consumer Protection Act, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. [29] Section 2(24), Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. [30] Rule 2(g), Noise Pollution Regulation and Control Rules, 2000. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. [31] Section 2(q), Human Immuno Deficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. [32] Supra note 28 & 30. Section 2(s), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 2(24), Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Section 3(23), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 2(q), Human Immuno Deficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. [33] Section 3(23), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. [34] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. [35]Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. [36] Supra note 29 & 30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. [37] Supra note 29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. [38] Section 2(s), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. [39] Supra note 34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. [40] Rule 2(2), Environmental Protection Rules, 1986. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. [41] Section 2(31), Customs Act, 1962. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. [42] Rule 2 (18), National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. [43] Section 2(28), Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. [44] V.D. Mahajan, Jurisprudence And Legal Theory ,338 (Eastern Book Company: 2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. [45] Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass., UKHL 1 AC 153, 33 (1971). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. [46] Yogendra Nath Nasker v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1969 SC 1089; Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar, (1999) 5 SCC 50; Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Shri. Som Nath Dass (2000) 4 SCC 146 : AIR 2000 SC 1421. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. [47] Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick and Anr., AIR 1925 PC 139. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. [48] Moorti Shree Behari Ji v. Prem Dass, AIR 1972 Allahabad 287. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. [49] Supra Note 48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. [50] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. [51] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. [52] Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand 2017 SCC Online Utt 367. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. [53] The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. V. Mohd. Salim & Ors., SLP(Civil) 16879/2017, Supreme Court. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. [54] Delvaux,M. (2017), Reportwith recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)), Technical report, Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A8-2017-0005+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN [accessed 23 June 2024]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. [55] Flanigan, J. (2017). Philosophical Methodol­ogy and Leadership Ethics. Leadership, 1-24. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1742715017711823. (last visited 24 June 2024). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. [56] Rothblatt, Martine. Virtually Human: The Promise—and the Peril—of Digital Immortality (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2014). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. [57] Wallach, Wendell and Colin Allen. Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Online edition, Oxford Academic, 1 Jan. 2009, https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374049.001.0001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. [58] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. [59] Stamatis Karnouskos, The Interplay of Law, Robots and Society in an Artificial Intelligent Era, LLM Thesis, UMEA University (2017). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. [60] H. PUTNAM, Machines or Artificially Created Life?,  Journal of Philosophy, Vol 61., n. 21, American philosophical Association, 1964. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. [61] Maruerite E Gerstner, Liability Issues With AI Software, 33 SANTA CLARA L.REV. 239 (1993). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. [62] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. [63] Bryson, J.J. Patiency is not a virtue: the design of intelligent systems and systems of eth­ics, Ethics Inf Technol 20, 15–26 (2018). https://doi. org/10.1007/s10676-018-9448-6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. [64] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. [65] Supra note 23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. [66] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. [67] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. [68] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. [69] Ugo Pagallo, The Laws of Robots: Crimes, Contracts, and Torts (Springer 2013) 45–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. [70] Bryant Walker Smith, ‘Automated Driving and Product Liability’ (2017) 2017 Mich St L Rev 1, 12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. [71] Thomas Burri and Fredrik von Bothmer, ‘The New EU Legislation on Artificial Intelligence: A Primer’ (SSRN, 21 April 2021) https://ssrn.com/abstract=3831424 accessed 30 September 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. [72] Hannah Yee-Fen Lim, Autonomous Vehicles and the Law: Technology, Algorithms and Ethics (Edward Elgar 2018) 63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. [73] Ryan Calo, ‘Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap’ (2017) 51 UC Davis L Rev 399, 421. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. [74] Christiane Wendehorst, ‘Strict Liability for AI and Other Emerging Technologies’ (2020) 11 J Eur Tort L 150, 152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. [75] Matthew U Scherer, ‘Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies’ (2016) 29 Harv J L & Tech 353, 365. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. [76] Supra Note 72 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. [77] Supra Note 74 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. [78] European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on Liability for Artificial Intelligence COM (2022) 496 final. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. [79] European Parliament, Resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2017/2103(INL)) para 59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. [80] Andrea Bertolini, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability’ (2019) 25 AI & Society 293, 297. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. [81] Nathalie Smuha, ‘Beyond the Individual: Governing AI’s Societal Harm’ (2021) Internet Policy Review https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/beyond-individual-governing-ais-societal-harm accessed 30 September 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. [82] Supra Note 82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. [83] Christopher Markou and Simon Deakin, Is Law Computable? Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence (Hart 2020) 212. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. [84] CERRE (M Peitz et al), Liability Rules for the Age of Artificial Intelligence (CERRE Report, March 2021) 28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. [85] Supra Note 73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. [86] Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee v Som Nath Dass (2000) 4 SCC 146 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. [87] Mohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand Writ Petition (PIL) No 126 of 2014 (Uttarakhand HC, 20 March 2017), stayed by Supreme Court, 7 July 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. [88] Supra Note 75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. [89] Jose Gabriel Carrasco Ramirez, From Autonomy to Accountability: Envisioning AI’s Legal Personhood, Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing  6(9) 23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. [90] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. [91] Ibid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. [92] Supra Note 88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. [93] Supra Note 76. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. [94] Supra Note 86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. [95] European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on Liability for Artificial Intelligence COM (2022) 496 final; Ryan Calo, ‘Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap’ (2017) 51 UC Davis L Rev 399, 430. European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on Liability for Artificial Intelligence COM (2022) 496 final; Ryan Calo, ‘Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap’ (2017) 51 UC Davis L Rev 399, 430. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.