Author : Jaya Falod
College: ICFAI University
Abstract
With constitutional courts worldwide applying large language model systems (LLMs) for predictive purposes and remedying historic high volumes of case backlogged due to pandemic conditions, there is a distinct transformation occurring in the structure and processes used by judges to make their decisions. Although LLMs provide speed and efficiency, they exacerbate the challenges faced in maintaining judicial independence with respect to due process protections, equal protection under the law, and transparency between institutions—three critical constitutional guarantees. This article investigates the rebirth of the Human Primacy Doctrine as a constitutional safeguard. In this regard, it explores the foundational principles of the Doctrine, focusing on three factors: preserving the dignity and humanity of individuals when resolving questions involving “open texture” statutory interpretations, and reinforcing the sovereign jurisdictional (imperium) authority of judges through a prohibition against the delegation of such authority to others. Ultimately, this article concludes that having an unequivocal right to have your matter adjudicated by a human judge is not simply a reactionary manner of retarding the current trend toward modernization, but rather is a crucial constitutional prerequisite to building public confidence and institutional trust in the rule of law throughout jurisdictions.
To the Point
The essence of constitutionalism is built on something inherently human; there can be no substitute for the human judgement involved in determining how to balance fundamental rights.
Theoretical models may enable better administrative efficiency, but an algorithm-based judiciary destroys three foundations of the law:
– The doctrine of living trees (i.e. constitutional law evolves as society changes), fail to evolve as historical data is the base from which a model derives information; therefore, it will be rigid with regard to history, fixating historical prejudice in an objective fashion and preventing changes in the development of the law.
– The requirement to provide human understandable justification (i.e. ratio decidendi) in a democratic judicial system, will not be met, as the “black box” of artificial neural networks does not provide a clear explanation for its conclusions and the processes used to reach those conclusions will eliminate the constitutional right to a meaningful appeal.
– The requirement of natural justice to allow for an interactive forum to weigh and consider subjective human characteristics (i.e. audi alteram partem), will not be met, as algorithms will convert a human being into a quantitative equivalent probability; thereby violating due process as all citizens will be treated as statistical data rather than autonomous human beings.
Judicial power is an inalienable confidence. When the demand for technological precision compromises due process, the Constitution states that “efficiency” of the administration must yield to the “equity” of human being.
to the point.
Use of Legal Jargon
According to the Human Primacy Doctrine, constitutional law interpretation deals with determining the rights, liberties and justice of individuals and groups, and must always involve moral and intellectual principles. It cannot be delegated to machines (i.e. AI or prediction algorithms).
Three Main Legal Problems:
- Destroying Stare Decisis (the legal principle where courts are bound by previous court descisions): For any Constitutional Law to continue to be valid, it must change over time to reflect changes in society, while the algorithms used in making decisions are based on old historical data, thus creating bad outcomes by locking the law into old biases with no means of allowing the law (and therefore society) to evolve.
- Insufficient Ratio Decidendi (reasoned judgment): Judges are required to create a clearly articulated explanation (i.e. ratio decidendi) of the reasoning behind every decision made to create an opportunity to appeal the decision, but because the decision making process of complex neural networks (the technology used to create future-predicting algorithms) are opaque “black boxes”, it becomes impossible to knowing the reasoning behind the decisions being made by them, thereby eliminating the basis for accountability of judges.
3. Violating Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem): The right to a hearing in a court of law provides individuals with the right to present all the relevant and true human context for their respective cases, whereas algorithms reduce the true human context of each individual to a singular statistical probability through converting all human emotions and experiences to rigid quantifiable term.
Case Laws
- Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao (2026): The Threat of Algorithmic Misconduct
When the Indian Supreme Court ruled in Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao that there must be verification of any legal automation used in determining legal rights, this was an important milestone. The Court stepped in when a lower trial court made substantial orders on the basis of fake precedent generated by an AI. In doing so, the Supreme Court made a ruling that simply relying on automated output without independent verification by a human is more than just an error in law but amounts to misconduct of the judiciary at an institutional level. This case provides direct support for the argument in your article that ratio decidendi has collapsed. By showing that automated systems do not have cognitive fidelity, the case illustrates that there is no alternative but to ensure that any ruling on an individual’s right to due process must include direct human interaction with authoritative written legal texts.
- Supreme Court AI Regulations (2026): Codifying Human Primacy
The Supreme Court of India’s AI Committee has enacted legally binding national regulations on the use of artificial intelligence in courts, specifically Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, to respond to the Gummadi Usha Rani crisis. Regulation 4 of these regulations explicitly establishes the Human Primacy Doctrine, which states that all technological deployments shall be strictly subordinate to human intellect and independent judicial discretion, as the formula for determining whether technology is appropriate for any particular deployment. In addition, these regulations strictly prohibit common-law adjudicatory functions, such as assessing the credibility of witnesses, sentencing offenders, or assessing bail determinations using non-obvious methods of risk scoring. Regulation 43 explicitly shifts an absolute strict liability to the practitioner for the entire scope of human accountability, stating that “algorithmic opacity” or errors made by machines shall not be used as a legitimate defence to misidentifying pleadings; therefore, providing final legal accountability for the entire spectrum of civil law on the individualisation and determination of legal liability shall remain solely the responsibility of humans.
- State v. Loomis (U.S., 2016)
In summarizing the facts of this case, the State of Wisconsin moved to use the COMPAS risk assessment algorithm developed by Northpointe, to calculate recidivism for sentencing purposes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that as an automated assessment tool, COMPAS could be utilized as part of the totality of evidence, but could not serve as the sole basis for a final decision regarding the imposition of sentence.
Consequently, the court ruled that the COMPAS assessment must be complemented with additional evidence obtained through a thorough evaluation of the defendant’s circumstances before a sentence could be imposed. This decision provides an anchor authority for properly protecting the rationales behind decisions made by judges when restricting the liberties of criminals. In this regard, the court recognized that to be constitutional, any limitations on individuals must be based solely on the independent, objective analysis of their criminal activity, as verified by human beings who have had an unbiased opportunity to assess each defendant’s case.
Conclusion
The integration of predictive technology into the judicial system exposes a fundamental dilemma—a choice between individualized fairness and systemic mathematical efficiency. As recognized from State v. Loomis to the Indian Supreme Court AI Regulations, algorithmic tools must remain strictly supportive. They can never replace the independent, transparent human cognition that gives the law its inherent legitimacy.
Enabling automated decision-making sacrifices core constitutionalism for mere administrative speed. While an algorithm can aggregate vast historical data, it cannot process human dignity. It is structurally incapable of delivering a traceable ratio decidendi, guaranteeing the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), or allowing the law to organically evolve. Instead, it calcifies past societal prejudices, transforming a living constitution into a stagnant, path-dependent prison.
Ultimately, judicial power is an unalienable institutional trust, not an optimization problem. The Human Primacy Doctrine stands as a vital shield against the mechanical degradation of civil liberties. When the demand for institutional velocity collides with the requirements of substantive due process, efficiency must yield. Equity cannot be quantified; true justice demands a human conscience.
FAQs
Q1: Define ‘Human Primacy Doctrine’ from a Legal Perspective?
A: The ‘Human Primacy Doctrine’ is a constitutional tenet which asserts that core functions of the judiciary (e.g., weighing evidence, determining guilt, and balancing fundamental rights) can only be performed by a human being’s conscious decision-making, moral agency, or independent discretion. The ‘Human Primacy Doctrine’ declares that judicial authority is an unalienable trust which cannot be delegated or outsourced to an algorithm.
Q2: Describe how Predictive AI will destabilize the natural progression of Law?
A: Constitutional Law is intended to develop at a rate commensurate with the changing value systems of the society within which it will operate. Predictive models are trained from a data set created from historical information, which has created a rigid form of path dependence. Predictive algorithms also harden the existing biases existent in society into objective formulas, effectively halting any further development of law, thereby ‘locking in’ a Living Constitution to a point in time ‘in order to establish their credibility’.
Q3: What is the ‘Black Box’ Problem, and how does it violate the Right to Due Process?
A: Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) networks operate as ‘black boxes’, in that there are no human-readable META-data records regarding the internal logic employed by AI algorithms. The Due Process concept requires an identifiable ratio decidendi or valid legal justification for a ruling or tribunal conclusion. In the absence of a human-readable explanation of how an algorithm arrived at its conclusion, a Citizen’s access to due process to appeal the ruling has been severed.
