Robots as Legal Persons: Should AI Have Rights?

Written by: Milasha Biju, 4th Year B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Lovely Professional University Phagwara, Punjab 

court.

Abstract 

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has blurred the line between human and machine capacities, raising complex legal and ethical questions. Can or should AI be treated as a legal person? Should intelligent robots have rights, duties, or liabilities similar to humans or corporations? This article examines the concept of legal personhood, explores jurisprudential theories of rights, and analyses comparative legal developments related to AI entities. It concludes by arguing that while AI should not currently be treated as a full legal person, a limited “electronic personhood” model may be necessary to regulate accountability and liability in an increasingly automated world. 

Introduction 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transitioned from being a mere tool of convenience to a significant participant in human affairs. From self-driving cars and humanoid robots to algorithmic decision-making systems, AI now performs tasks involving judgment, reasoning, and creativity—qualities once reserved for humans. This evolution raises a critical question: should AI systems or robots be recognized as legal persons capable of bearing rights and duties under law? 

The debate on AI personhood intersects law, ethics, philosophy, and technology. While legal systems traditionally recognise humans and corporations as legal persons, extending such recognition to non-human, non-biological entities challenges the very foundation of jurisprudence. This article seeks to critically analyse whether AI entities deserve legal rights or responsibilities and under what circumstances such recognition would be justified. 

I. The Concept of Legal Personhood 

The term legal person refers to any entity recognised by law as having rights and obligations. Historically, the law has recognised two categories of legal persons: natural persons and juristic persons. The idea of conferring legal personhood is thus a legal fiction, created to serve practical or moral purposes. The flexible nature of this concept shows that legal status is not confined to humans but extends wherever law and policy find justification. 

II. Jurisprudential Basis: Who Deserves Rights?

Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, and H.L.A. Hart have discussed the moral basis of rights. From a legal positivist standpoint, as John Austin noted, rights exist only through the authority of a sovereign. Therefore, an entity’s ability to possess rights depends not on consciousness, but on legislative intent or judicial recognition. If lawmakers deem AI personhood socially useful or necessary for justice, it could be granted. 

III. Existing Legal Frameworks on AI and Personhood 

Currently, no legal system fully recognises AI as a legal person, but various jurisdictions have discussed the issue—such as the European Union’s proposal for “electronic personhood,” the United States’ focus on accountability, Japan’s ethical frameworks, and India’s flexible jurisprudence recognising non-human entities like deities and rivers as legal persons. 

IV. Arguments For Recognising AI Personhood 

1. Practical necessity for liability 

2. Encouraging innovation and regulation 

3. Ethical recognition of advanced AI 

V. Arguments Against AI Personhood 

1. Lack of consciousness and moral agency 

2. Dilution of human responsibility 

3. Legal and philosophical absurdity 

4. Technological dependency 

VI. The Middle Path: “Electronic Personhood” 

A balanced approach may lie in recognising limited electronic personhood, where certain AI systems are recognised as separate legal entities for specific functions—particularly liability and contractual capacity—without granting them moral or human rights. 

VII. Comparative Analogy: Corporate Personhood and AI 

Corporate personhood offers a useful analogy, but AI differs because its actions may be autonomous and not directly traceable to human intent. Thus, AI requires stricter oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse. 

VIII. Future Implications: Law, Ethics, and Society 

As AI continues to evolve, legal systems must anticipate new dilemmas: criminal liability, privacy rights, employment rights, and human identity. These questions demand

interdisciplinary engagement to ensure coherent and just frameworks. 

IX. The Indian Perspective and Way Forward 

India’s jurisprudence is well-placed to adapt to AI challenges. Establishing a National AI Regulatory Authority, enacting an AI Liability Act, and fostering academic debate can ensure safety and accountability while promoting innovation. 

Conclusion 

The question of whether robots or AI should have rights is not merely theoretical—it is a legal inevitability. However, full legal personhood for AI is premature. Instead, limited electronic personhood offers a balanced path, ensuring accountability and innovation coexist. 

References 

1. European Parliament Resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, 2017. 2. John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832). 

3. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). 4. H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (1961). 

5. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2021). 

6. Mohd. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360. 

7. European Law Review (2018). 

8. United Nations Interagency Working Group on AI (2023).