Introduction
Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the workings of governments, which can also be seen in numerous other places, including court processes all over the world. Courts in various regions are already adopting Artificial Intelligence technologies for purposes of case management, as well as for administration and legal research. Nevertheless, there are problems associated with AI as well. The goal of this article is to show how human judges are important in Indian courts operating through Artificial Intelligence. In addition, this article will show how Artificial Intelligence can enhance effectiveness in the judicial process, but the decision-making role should be held by people in addition to Artificial Intelligence technologies. The Human-in-the-Loop approach helps a human to supervise Artificial Intelligence decisions. However, human approval means nothing if good judges do not use sufficiently advanced AI technologies. Such strict regulations and training for judges will lead to considerable positive outcomes.
AI in Judicial Decision-Making: An Overview
The term artificial intelligence refers to machines that can read legal and factual data to make predictions and provide recommendations. Using set regulations enables the machines to perform more functions, for instance, matching at a workplace or document assessment, and others. An AI System or AI Tool is either a computer application, a program, or a device that applies AI technology to provide services during the trial. Most of the AI solutions are based on rules and, therefore, are easier in comparison with the others because their logic can be understood. Simultaneously, some systems can use machine learning that helps them to analyse data and identify something that was not known to the creators.
It implies that the people who created AI are not always in a position to clarify the reason for its suggestions. Thus, transparency is not merely a technical problem but one of constitutional significance for AI. In the present time, the challenge for the Indian court system is not to reject technological innovations, but to ensure their compliance with the country and its laws.
Emerging Technologies
The Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency (SUPACE), which is involved in the processing of a significant number of documents regarding a particular court case, is proof of this problem because it helps select relevant precedents and summarize complicated legal papers. The portal does not make decisions and is designed only to assist judges by processing data. Although SUPACE helps to discover critical case laws, it still poses certain problems with its functioning.
There is a lack of information concerning the criteria used by SUPACE to evaluate the relevance of judgments and the type of data used for its training purposes, so it is unclear how objective its outputs are. In the absence of clear knowledge about how the system comes to its conclusions, it is nearly impossible to understand whether it performs properly or does not make mistakes because it does not work under any influence from hidden prejudices against some people.These days, the Supreme Court has also been working on a new project called SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), which is a translation aid used to translate judgments from English to Indian languages. It is currently capable of translating judgments into 16 languages, and in Phase 3 of the E-Courts project, it will be made available in the High Courts as well. However, like any other Artificial Intelligence System, SUVAS needs to be regularly checked. Moreover, the Indian judiciary is utilizing a different kind of digital technology to handle various processes such as filing cases, conducting remote hearings, managing cases, and transcribing messages and other documents.
Advantages Of Artificial Intelligence In Courts
Improvement of Efficiency in the Court System – The application of artificial intelligence enables judges to perform a lot of monotonous tasks, such as searching the law, analysing documents, and managing courts effectively. Therefore, there is an opportunity to speed up judicial proceedings as well as make them less complex. It results in the ability of courts to deal with complex cases.
Providing Predictability to Judicial Decisions – Artificial intelligence allows for analysing numerous judicial decisions and therefore makes the search for the cases easier and quicker. It increases the quality of judicial decisions since the cases will be easier to analyse.
Aid to Judges in the Process of Making Decisions – AI systems should only assist judges in their job but not take their place. Thereby, judges can make decisions in advance, provide a summary of considerable documents, and classify their information.
Constitutional and Legal Challenges
Many people express their apprehension about the legal consequences of using AI technologies in legal practice. According to Article 21 of the Constitution, individuals are entitled to the appropriate procedures. The Supreme Court ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India stated that there should be a proper and fair procedure, and the use of Artificial Intelligence technologies is subject to fairness and adherence to procedures.
The right to privacy is a basic human right. Artificial intelligence technologies can collect and store personal financial data, and if the information is mishandled, it can work against these individuals. Although India has enacted data protection laws, there is still a need for some adjustments in the existing laws concerning the regulation of the use of information by the judiciary. Government authorities should be responsible for the protection of human rights. The It is important that the use of AI technologies is traceable and is subject to judicial regulation. Recently, the Supreme Court of India has taken a very stringent stance towards the use of Artificial Intelligence in court cases. In the case of Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao, the Supreme Court has made it clear that taking decisions based on AI-generated fake data does not just amount to an error of judgment but also amounts to misconduct that can have legal consequences. The court called something which is of “considerable institutional concern” as it impacts the integrity of the adjudicatory process. The court has directed the attorney general, solicitor general and Bar Council of India to investigate based on this job by the use of Artificial Intelligence in courts.
Another problem related to Artificial Intelligence is algorithmic bias. Algorithmically biased situations occur when an AI learns from data that is not free from bias. For instance, whenever there has been an application of excessive punishment to certain groups of people in the past, AI might repeat the same mistake, which contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution. The phenomenon of automation bias is another psychological issue associated with the application of AI technologies. To avoid this, courts must ensure that judges have their own opinions and should not rely on Artificial Intelligence all the time.
The Role Of Human Judges in AI-Assisted Decision-Making
The use of AI can facilitate the processing of information, but the final decision remains with the judge. The matter is that human judges can interpret laws and to consider the particularities of the case before a fair decision is made. In contrast, AI systems are only capable of investigating patterns and making guesses based on the data provided.
Artificial Intelligence has to be used in systems in such a way that it is unambiguous and responsible. This means that Artificial Intelligence must be designed in such a way that it is user-friendly and transparent, and that judges will know how the Artificial Intelligence system made a certain decision. However, there is a limit to what Artificial Intelligence can do. It will not make any decisions concerning matters or the credibility of witnesses. Also, it will not be able to understand the ethical aspects of the case.
International Perspective
The experience of countries with the use of Artificial Intelligence in courts may be taken into account in India. For example, in the USA, it was discovered that COMPAS is not fair to everybody, as the tool gives risk scores to African Americans.
A pilot initiative commenced in Estonia to introduce an Artificial Intelligence judge for minor disputes (less than €7,000). Nevertheless, Artificial Intelligence generates proposals which are assessed by judges who have the right to accept, amend, or discard them. The methodology indicates that human judicial administration will still be important in the regions trying AI decision-making.
Moreover, the European Union takes a cautious approach toward the employment of Artificial Intelligence in legal proceedings. The argument presented by the European Union is that employing Artificial Intelligence for court cases is risky and requires clarification on its workings. The UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence states that Artificial Intelligence must be a tool to assist us in our functioning rather than replace us.
Way Forward For India
India ought to be cautious and establish some boundaries about how to use Artificial Intelligence in courts, and also lay down rules that demonstrate how Artificial Intelligence can be used in the courts. The laws must stipulate what type of Artificial Intelligence can be used, what it is authorized to do, and under what circumstances it can get permission for this purpose, as well as whether robotics have to be applied. The Artificial Intelligence technologies thus developed have to be assessed as to their manner of use and impact on court proceedings. Judges and court personnel have to know how to distinguish between the proper use of Artificial Intelligence and its misuse and how to ensure that the technology is used for beneficial purposes. The safety of the data shared during trials must be ensured, together with the regulations regarding access to the data and the period of storage of the data.
Simultaneously, it is also pertinent for India to ensure that Artificial Intelligence (AI) should not make the judicial system lose its independence. The use of AI in courts is arbitrary unless it can explain how it arrives at its decisions in a clear manner. The use of AI is welcome as long as it can explain in simple terms how its systems work. It is essential that the public have a platform where they can express their opinions on the function of AI in courts, as citizens and lawyers have the right to voice their views and thus gradually build a culture of trust in the judicial system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, implementing Artificial Intelligence in the court system can provide exceptional advantages such as optimizing processes and eliminating delays. The tools like SUPACE and SUVAS already demonstrate how Technology can assist judges by creating and processing information regarding the cases, linking and translating judgments, and doing legal research as well. But the principle of Human-in-the-Loop means that Artificial Intelligence is a tool which helps judges rather than replacing them. To achieve the aim, it is crucial to solve the issues of bias, transparency, and automation bias, train the judges properly, create efficient regulations concerning Artificial Intelligence, and ensure that every technology employed in the court system is publicly transparent and audited.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY RAJIV KAUR FROM ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI
REFERENCES :
1 Draft Artificial Intelligence (Regulation and Governance in Courts) Act, 2026, s. 2(zb).
2 Id., s. 2(a).
3 Id., s. 2(b).
4 Angel Mary John, M. U. Aiswarya & Jerrin Thomas Panachakel, “Ethical Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary”, 2023 IEEE International Conference on Metrology for eXtended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE), IEEE, 2023, 725.
5 Mohit Sharma, “India’s Courts and Artificial Intelligence: A Future Outlook,” 15 LeXonomica 107 (2023).
6 Pragya Nagpal, Vidhi Uppal, Harshita Gera, Manish Kumar Chaursiya & Gaurav Chandel, “Use of AI Tools Like SUPACE in Indian Judiciary: Constitutional Safeguards for Due Process and Judicial Independence,” 14 International Journal of Engineering Development and Research 99 (2026).
7 Pallavi Singh, Shyam Kumar Anand & Ochkina Anastasia (eds.), Legal Perspectives: Exploring Contemporary Issues 85 (The Lawway with Lawyers, Ranchi, 2024).
8 Sakkcham Singh Parmaar, “When the Judge Meets the Algorithm: AI Tools Entering India’s Courts: Millions of Cases Are Pending in India; Will AI and Future Technologies Help Speed Things Up?” Global Voices 1 (2025).
9 Supra note 5.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 The Constitution of India, art. 21.
13 (1978) 1 SCC 248.
14 K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
15 Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.
16 Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 341.
17 Supra note 12, art.14.
18 Supra note 5.
19 Ibid.
20 Sandra G. Mayson, “Bias In, Bias Out”, 128 Yale Law Journal 2227–2233 (2019).
21 UNESCO General Conference, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, UNESCO Doc. 41 C/Resolution 24 (Nov. 23, 2021), para. 26.
22 European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European Ethical Charter on the Use of
Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment (Council of Europe, Dec. 3, 2018), Principles 1–5.
23 Tania Sourdin, “Judge v Robot? Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-Making”, 41 UNSW Law Journal 1130– 1133 (2018).
