Role of AI in Judiciary Explained: UPSC Current Affairs

Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU

Context

The Kerala High Court has become the first court in India to set guidelines for the use of AI tools in judiciary, restricting them to non-judicial tasks, and mandating human oversight to balance efficiency against the potential for bias and other risks.

What is AI?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the technologies that enable computers to mimic human learning, reasoning and problem-solving. It can analyze data, recognize patterns, translate language and make conclusion.

AI adoption is surging worldwide. Over 73% of organizations globally are using or piloting AI in core functions. (TechNation Report)

Global AI market was valued at $391 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach $1.81 trillion by 2030.

AI boosts productivity and decision-making across sectors. In the judiciary it handle routine tasks like sorting documents or translating text, allowing judges to focus on complex legal analysis.

In 2024 UNESCO survey found that about 44% of judicial professionals across 96 countries already use AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT) in work-related tasks, indicating increasing potential.

Why Introduce AI in Indian Judiciary?

Case backlog: Over 82,000 cases in the Supreme Court, more than 62 lakh cases in the High Courts and about 5 crore cases in the lower courts, are pending. (Source: The Hindu)

Delays and adjournments undermine access to justice. AI can help by automating administrative tasks (like scheduling and record-keeping) to process cases faster.

Efficiency gains: AI can perform legal research (searching precedents, summarizing documents) and case management.

For example, AI-based scheduling and predictive analytics can suggest optimum court calendars and identify cases eligible for settlement. This frees judges and staff from routine work and cuts procedural delays.

Access & inclusivity: Language barriers have limited many citizens’ access to higher courts.

AI translation tools (like SUVAS software) can generate judgments and legal materials into regional languages.
Virtual hearings powered by videoconferencing and AI transcription have democratized access: lawyers can present cases remotely, reducing travel time and expense.

Equity and outreach: Hybrid court systems (live + virtual) combined with AI (e.g. automated translations) can bring justice closer to disadvantaged populations.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

Access to justice (Art.14/21): Constitution guarantees equality before law and the right to speedy trial, technologies that ensure legal informations are widely available fulfill these fundamental rights.

No AI-specific law yet: Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) will govern any automated processing of personal data (relevant for AI use in evidence and records).

Law requires that all judicial orders be signed and justified by judges, meaning AI cannot formally “decide” a case.
Supreme Court’s protocols affirm that AI outputs must always be reviewed and adopted by a human judge.

India need clear guidelines or rules – such as mandatory disclosure of AI use in filings – now the judiciary relies on internal rules to govern AI in courtrooms.

Key AI Initiatives in Indian Courts

eCourts Phase III: Under the National e-Courts project, the government is integrating AI across court systems. Government allocated ₹7,210 crore (2021–2027), with ₹53.57 crore specifically for AI and blockchain innovation.

Features include AI-assisted case managemen, Integration of Optical Character Recognition (OCR)/Natural Language Processing (NLP) enabled e-filing of documents to reduce manual errors in the documentation process.

AI in Supreme Court: In 2021 the SC’s AI Committee launched SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency) to help judges analyze case files using AI.

SUPACE uses machine learning to organize and process data, helping judges and legal researchers with tasks like legal research, fact extraction, and drafting documents
SUVAS system (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), launched in 2019, uses AI to translate judgments into multiple languages, making rulings accessible to non-English readers.
As of March 2025, 36344 Supreme Court Judgments have been translated in Hindi language and 47439 Judgments have been translated in other vernacular languages and uploaded on e-SCR portal. (Source: PIB)
Official Multilingual Mobile Application launched in 2019, developed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC), provides real-time access to case-related information in Hindi, and six regional languages.

High Courts: Several High Courts have set up AI committees and training programs.

Madras HC emphasized that AI can “assist in summarizing voluminous documents, tagging and listing similar cases” – speeding up research and case disposal.
Karnataka, Delhi and other HCs have encouraged judges to use tools like SUPACE.
In July 2025, the Kerala High Court issued AI Usage Policy for the district judiciary, setting India’s first concrete court guidelines on AI.

Kerala High Court July 2025 AI Guidelines

Promote AI Literacy: Judges, lawyers, and court staff require comprehensive training on how to use AI tools and their inherent limitations.

Judicial academies and bar associations should collaborate with AI governance experts to lead the capacity-building programs.

Establish Clear Usage Guidelines: Litigants have the right to be informed if AI is being used in the adjudication of their case or within a specific courtroom.

Courts should offer an opt-out provision for litigants who have concerns about the AI systems being used in their cases.

Develop Technical Support Systems: As recommended in the Vision Document for Phase III of the eCourts Project, create dedicated technology offices.

These offices, staffed by specialists, can assist courts in assessing, selecting, and overseeing the implementation of complex digital tools, bridging the gap in technical expertise.

Current Applications & Case Studies

Legal research portals: All High Courts have been advised to encourage judges to use SUPACE for legal research.

Tools like CaseMine’s AMICUS (a GPT-powered legal chatbot) and others have started streamlining research for litigators, improving lawyer productivity.

AI translation in action: Supreme Court judgements translated into up to 18 languages, broadened public access.

High courts like Karnataka and others are using AI to translate local laws and court orders for rural users.
In 2023, a Punjab & Haryana High Court bench openly acknowledged using ChatGPT during bail hearings, however, they made clear the AI output was only a starting point and not evidence.

Predictive tools: Some courts are experimenting with predictive analytics; analyze past data to advise on litigation strategy.

SC has tested legaltech like “Premonition” and “Lex Machina” to forecast case outcomes and timelines, they hint where judges and lawyers can use AI predictions (with caution) to manage dockets and counsel clients.

Challenges and Concern in Using AI in Judiciary

Bias and fairness: AI systems learn from historical data, which can implant existing biases.

Experts warned that opaque “black-box” algorithms could lead to discriminatory outcomes, and amplify inequality, if unchecked.

Accountability: Neither litigants nor judges can inspect how an AI arrived at a suggestion. Without transparency, it would be hard to examine an AI-based recommendation.

Inaccuracy in Translation and Transcription: A Supreme Court judge noted an AI tool translated "leave granted" into Hindi as "holiday approved."

In a U.K. case, an AI transcription tool repeatedly transcribed the name "Noel" as "no."

Errors and “hallucinations”: Generative AI (like GPT) can fabricate information. CJI B. R. Gavai in the courtroom highlighted a case where AI-based research tools delivered fake case references.

CJI BR Gavai stated "AI lacks the ability to verify sources with human-level sensitivity, led to situations where lawyers and researchers, trusting AI-generated information, have unknowingly cited non-existent cases or misleading legal precedents, resulting in professional embarrassment”.
Such errors could confuse courts or damage cases.
Judiciary must be vigilant: every AI output needs human validation.

Human element & ethics: Several judges have stressed that core judicial functions demand human empathy and moral judgment, algorithms cannot replace the understanding judges bring to sensitive cases (e.g. family law, juvenile matters).

Privacy and security: AI tools require large datasets (court records, personal details, etc.). Mishandling this data could violate privacy or be a cybersecurity risk.

Access and inequality: Danger of a “two-tiered” justice system. Experts warned that if AI benefits only the well-resourced, the poor could be left with inferior legal help.

Smaller courts or underprivileged litigants have less access to technology. Policymakers must bridge the digital divide – for example, by deploying shared AI resources in rural courts.

Ethical Pillers of AI in the Judicial System

Fundamental Rights: AI use in the judiciary must uphold fundamental rights like the Right to Privacy and the right to a fair trial.

In the 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India judgment, the Court affirmed the Right to Privacy as fundamental, making AI’s use of personal data directly subject to this principle.

Equal Treatment: AI trained on biased historical data could discriminate based on caste, gender, or socioeconomic status.

Fairness requires using representative datasets and conducting regular audits.

Data security: Using sensitive judicial data requires robust security and adherence to privacy laws to prevent breaches.

Transparency: AI systems must be transparent to build trust and ensure accountability. Explainability allows stakeholders to understand how AI reaches a conclusion.

Way Forward for Integrating AI in Judiciary

Build judicial capacity: Judges, lawyers and court staff need training in AI literacy. Integrate AI modules in judicial academies and programs.

Establish clear guidelines: Courts and legislatures should set clear rules for AI use.

Expand Kerala HC model: Defines permissible purposes, mandates human oversight, and requires transparency of AI tools.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Ethical Charter (2018) classify “judicial AI” as high-risk, requiring strict governance. Adopting similar standards will help India guard against misuse while reaping benefits.

Strengthen data safeguards: Any AI deployment must comply with privacy laws (now DPDP Act) and use secure infrastructure. Government already invests in cyber-security for courts; these efforts should expand to AI.

AI models should be hosted on court servers (not public cloud). Clear audit trails – logging what AI tools were used and how outputs were checked – should be mandatory.

Phased, supervised adoption: Introduce AI phase wise, starting with low-risk tasks (e.g. legal search, translation) and always under human review, judges must “approve” any AI-generated finding.

Independent oversight bodies (like a judicial AI board) could periodically review AI impacts.

International cooperation and standards: India should participate in global AI-in-justice initiatives.

CJI Gavai have lauded the Council of Europe’s work on an AI, Human Rights and Rule of Law framework, and UNESCO’s call for ethics-focused capacity-building. Engaging with these bodies will help India stay aligned with best practices.

Inclusivity and public engagement: Invest in extending e-court infrastructure to all states and smaller courts. Official AI portals should provide public updates on AI use in courts.

Civil society and bar councils can help educate litigants about AI tools (for example, how to report suspect transcripts).
Transparency – for example, requiring courts to mention in orders if an AI tool was used – will build trust.
AI-driven virtual legal assistants and chatbot can provide litigants with real-time information on case status, procedural guidance and essential legal updates.

What India can learn from other countries?

Ethics and rights frameworks: International bodies like UNESCO and the EU emphasize that AI in justice must respect fundamental rights.
- India should leverage these frameworks – for example, by participating in UNESCO’s judicial AI courses – to balance innovation with integrity.
Germany and the U.S. have faced backlash over biased risk-assessment tools (like COMPAS), highlighting the need for transparency.
Step by Step adoption: Singapore and some EU courts are experimenting with basic AI assistants for scheduling and document analysis. India should analyze these pilots to avoid implementation challenges.

Conclusion

AI offers a powerful toolkit to modernize courts – potential to transform the “slow-moving” court system into a more efficient, future-ready justice delivery mechanism. However, as CJI Gavai cautioned, AI must serve as an aid, not a replacement for human judges. Every AI-generated insight or draft must be checked and owned by a qualified jurist.

Source: THE HINDU

PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. The application of Artificial Intelligence in the judiciary promises to address the problem of case backlog and enhance access to justice. Critically analyze. 250 words