Legal Agency And AI: Can Machines Bear Rights And Responsibilities

Shradda Tomar

doi:10.69968/ijisem.2026v5i2227-236

Authors

Shradda Tomar LLM scholar MNLU , CS

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69968/ijisem.2026v5i2227-236

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence (AI), Legal Personhood, AI Agency, Rights and Responsibilities, Ethical and Legal Implications

Abstract

Significant ethical and legal concerns regarding agency, rights, and responsibilities are brought up by the quick development of artificial intelligence (AI). Legal systems around the world are debating whether AI systems should have legal personhood or continue to be merely instruments of human agents as they become more autonomous. This essay examines the developing legal debate surrounding AI agency, the viability of giving AI systems legal rights, and the ramifications of holding them responsible for their deeds. Using current legal frameworks, philosophical viewpoints, and technological realities, this study critically assesses whether AI can or should have rights and responsibilities, as well as the circumstances in which this recognition might take place.

References

[1] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India).

[2] AI and the Law: Governance Models for Autonomous Agents, ResearchGate (2025), https://www.researchgate.net

[3] The Legal Personality of AI: Should Machines Have Rights or Duties? Law Audience Journal (2023).

[4] Manish Kumar Singh, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Personhood: Redefining the Status in Legal Jurisprudence, Int’l J. Judicial & Soc. Res., vol. 4, no. 2, 171–178 (2024),

[5] Siddhi, The Legal Personality Of AI: Should Machines Have Rights or Duties? Law Audience Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 123–129 (June 16, 2025)

[6] The Legal Personality of AI: Should Machines Have Rights or Duties? Law Audience Journal (2023).

[7] TechReg Review, AI and Legal Agency: The Boundaries of Responsibility (2024), https://techreg.org.

[8] European Parliament Resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, P8_TA(2017)0051 (Feb. 16, 2017).

[9] Thaler v. Perlmutter, 650 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D.D.C. 2023).

[10] Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).

[11] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785).

[12] Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition No. 126 of 2017, Uttarakhand High Court

[13] Convergence Analysis Ltd., Artificial Intelligence and Legal Personhood (2025),Siddhi, The Legal Personality Of AI: Should Machines Have Rights or Duties? Law Audience Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 123–129 (June 16, 2025)

[14] Artificial Intelligence and Legal Identity: A 2050 Projection, ResearchGate (2024), https://www.researchgate.net.