Context:

While hearing a PIL seeking guidelines to prevent the misuse of AI in courts, the Supreme Court of India cautioned that judges will be “very cautious” in adopting AI and that it will never replace judicial decision-making.

Background:

• • AI refers to computer systems capable of performing tasks requiring human intelligence, such as reasoning, learning, and problem-solving.
  • In the judiciary, AI is seen as a tool to assist judges, lawyers, and court administration in handling legal research, case management, and data analysis.
  •  India’s judiciary, burdened with over 4 crore pending cases, faces severe delays, making AI a potential solution for efficiency.

Concerns with AI Use in Judiciary:

1.      Hallucinations

o    GenAI can generate fictitious outputs, such as fake judgments, precedents, or research material.

o    Example: In the UK High Court, lawyers submitted AI-generated legal arguments citing non-existent cases, highlighting risks of reliance on AI.

2.      Disparate Treatment

o    Improperly developed or deployed AI systems may treat individuals or groups differently, perpetuating biases based on gender, caste, class, or socioeconomic status.

3.     Lack of Transparency

o    Many AI algorithms function as “black boxes,” making it difficult to understand the rationale behind outputs.

o    This lack of transparency can compromise the fairness and accountability of judicial decision-making.

Potential Benefits of AI in Judiciary:

1.      Efficiency, Case Management, and Reduced Pendency

o    Automates document management, scheduling, retrieving precedents, and summarizing cases.

o    Predicts case delays, enabling better resource allocation and prioritization.

o    Streamlines administrative workflows, helping reduce India’s case backlog.

2.      Improved Access, Transparency, and Inclusivity

o    Translation, voice-to-text, and case summarization improve access for linguistic minorities and remote litigants.

o    Reduces human error in record-keeping and enhances retrieval of past judgments.

o    Digitization fosters transparency and consistency across courts.

3.     Aid to Judicial Reasoning

o    Supports judges and lawyers in legal research, highlighting precedents and summarizing judgments.

o    Assists in analyzing large datasets in complex cases, while the final decision remains with the judge.

o    Enhances judicial capacity without replacing human discretion.

Conclusion:

AI presents a double-edged sword: improves efficiency and access but risks opacity, bias, and undermining discretion.

Supreme Court’s cautious approach — keeping AI as a support tool — is prudent. Gradual, regulated adoption is necessary: training judges, auditing AI outputs, ensuring transparency, and establishing legal frameworks. Proper integration can enhance “speedy, just, and equitable justice” without compromising the rule of law.