Author: Ravleen Kaur, New Law College, BVP, Pune
INTRODUCTION
Integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Indian judicial systems marks a new, transformative shift that has the potential for efficiency and precision while simultaneously raising ethical, procedural, and constitutional concerns. India stands at a crossroads, where AI technologies can help clear backlogs but will have to contend with transparency, fairness, and principles as enshrined in the Constitution of India.
AI in the judiciary would, thus have to uphold these constitutional provisions under Article 14: equality before law; under Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty; and finally, under the doctrine of the basic structure of having an “independence of the judiciary.” Any algorithm, which forms the foundation of machine learning in such processes of judicious inquiry would, thus, need to follow principles of fairness, transparency, and reasonableness that are anticipated by the Constitution. Opaque “black-box algorithms” pose challenges to that effect, and there is the added concern of “data protection.” Legal safeguards are in place and must strictly be adhered to for not infringing on rights of citizens. AI has a role to play but supplementary, so that it doesn’t compromise the justice delivery system by acting superior to judicial discretion and human intervention.
Modern trends in India indicate increased thrust on AI in judiciary also. In his speech in judicial conference in 2023, Supreme Court Justice K. V. Viswanathan emphasized the need for judicially adopting AI with responsibilities to improve judicial delivery not at the cost of procedures. The e-Courts Mission Mode Project, under the aegis of the Ministry of Law and Justice, have put their AI-based transcription as well as case analysis systems across the country to make the flow unobstructed.
Research from Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy also emphasizes that AI may significantly decrease pendency rates in Indian courts. SUPACE is one such AI-enabled tool meant to assist the judges with huge amounts of data processing through the Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency. However, the use of AI in predictive policing, as seen in Mumbai’s Crime Mapping, Analytics, and Predictive System (CMAPS), has sparked debates about potential biases against marginalized communities, echoing concerns from similar implementations globally.
Abstract
AI has immense promise for the Indian judiciary to deal with systemic delays, streamline case management, and improve judicial efficiency. AI tools, such as SUPACE, have already been introduced to assist judges in handling voluminous case data. But this technological revolution raises important challenges relating to constitutional safeguards, judicial accountability, and data privacy. The opaque nature of AI algorithms and the risks of systemic bias make the judiciary tread with caution while adhering to principles of equality under Article 14, fairness, and protection of fundamental rights under Article 21.
Opportunities
There are numerous opportunities in applying AI in the judiciary:
Case Management: AI tools can process huge volumes of case data, making it more efficient and allowing judges to focus on substantive adjudication.
Legal Research: SUPACE helps in the preparation of precedents and case laws, thus saving time.
Pendency Reduction: AI-based systems can categorize cases based on priority, which will then help in reducing the pendency of over 40 million in Indian courts.
Access to Justice: By using AI-based chatbots and online dispute resolution platforms, the gap for under-represented litigants in accessing legal remedies can be minimized.
Challenges:
Despite its promise, AI poses significant challenges to the integration of AI in the judiciary:
Transparency: The “black box” characteristics of algorithms directly conflict with the principles of “natural justice” and open court systems.
Bias and Discrimination: Systems trained by biased datasets would perpetuate systemic inequities contrary to Articles 14 and 15.
Data Sovereignty: AI systems require huge amounts of data, which demands robust frameworks to prevent misuse and protect sensitive information under the Personal Data Protection Act, 2019 (pending enactment).
Judicial Accountability: Overreliance on AI threatens to water down judicial independence, violating the “separation of powers” doctrine.
Case Laws
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): This judgment established the right to privacy as a right guaranteed under Article 21. This puts much emphasis on “data protection” in AI systems used by the judiciary.
2. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): The Supreme Court emphasized the need for “proportionality” in the restriction of fundamental rights. This principle is important while deploying AI tools to ensure they do not disproportionately impact litigants’ rights.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): This case demonstrates the need for transparency in state actions, which directly applies to the use of “black-box algorithms” in judicial systems.
Conclusion
This is a landmark move of the Indian judiciary toward making justice delivery modern. However, the integration must put constitutional values first, such as equality, privacy, and due process. Judicial oversight is necessary for the preservation of integrity in AI-assisted adjudication and to ensure technology is an enabler rather than a disruptor of justice. Proper legislative and institutional safeguards must be implemented to counter the risks of bias, opacity, and misuse, and AI-driven justice must remain equitable, transparent, and in line with India’s constitutional ethos.
FAQS
1. Q: What are the key takeaways that are most benefitting AI in the Indian Judiciary?
A: Reduction in case backlogs with more aid in legal research with SUPACE online platforms and dispute resolution portals among other benefits.
2. Q: What are the principal legal issues with AI and courts in India?
A: Concerns include lack of transparency, potential biases in AI algorithms, risks to data privacy, and threats to judicial independence.
3. Q: What safeguards are needed for AI in the judiciary?
A: Safeguards include ensuring “algorithmic accountability,” mandating “human-in-the-loop” oversight, and aligning AI systems with constitutional principles of due process, equality, and privacy.
4. Q: Can AI replace human judges in India?
A: No. Artificial intelligence is meant to enhance the role of judges, rather than replace them. Human responsibility and accountability are essential toward justice and constitutionalism.
