Author: Tanishka Singh, 3rd Year, B.A. LL.B., Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) New Law College, Pune
To the Point
The justice system, traditionally dependent on human discretion, is experiencing a technological shift with the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). From documents to legal research to case management and predictive policing, AI is being piloted and rolled out in diverse legal roles. The shift, though technologically promising, incites grave ethical and constitutional issues.
Supporters say AI can make judicial processes more efficient, bring down pendency, and lead to greater consistency. Conversely, critics highlight algorithmic secrecy, the threat of bias, undermining of judicial discretion, and violation of fundamental rights, including privacy and due process. In this regard, a critical legal question arises: Is AI ethically and constitutionally includable in the justice delivery system? If yes, what regulatory frameworks are needed to ensure the fine line between innovation and individual rights is maintained?
This article explores the constitutional, ethical, and legal aspects of regulation of AI in the judicial system, relying on Indian and comparative case laws, doctrines, and jurisprudence.
Abstract
With Artificial Intelligence making its way into the corridors of justice, it carries a two-sided sword with one hand offering swiftness and precision and the other hand generating ethical and constitutional dilemmas. While the inclusion of AI in mechanisms of delivering justice may be inevitable, the lack of legislative clarity in India adds fuel to concerns about its unfettered application.
This piece examines whether or not regulation of AI is a constitutional imperative or an ethical obligation. While AI has the potential to streamline court procedures and aid congested legal institutions, it also threatens to inject systemic bias, compromise human accountability, and infringe on basic rights like privacy and due process. The Indian legal system, though progressing, does not yet have strong statutory regulation of AI systems in the courts.
To counter these apprehensions, this paper examines salient judgments, major legal concepts, and global models to plead for a regulation framework that balances technological innovation with constitutional integrity. The core argument is that ethical AI, led by transparency, equity, and human oversight, can promote access to justice without sacrificing the democratic values inherent in our legal system.
Use of Legal Jargon
•Due Process of Law: Constitutional principle that requires that proceedings be fair, reasonable, and in accordance with established rules.
•Algorithmic Accountability: The responsibility of AI developers and users to explain and justify the output of algorithm-based systems.
•Natural Justice: Legal doctrines that require fair hearing, and absence of bias in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.
•Right to Privacy: A right recognized under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that protects personal data and informational autonomy.
•Bias and Discrimination: Arbitrary treatment on the basis of biased algorithmic responses or biased training data.
•Judicial Discretion: The discretion vested in judges to decide as per fairness and principles of law, which should always remain human-oriented.
•Black Box Algorithms: AI systems whose workings are invisible and cannot be comprehended.
•Constitutional Morality: The prevalence of essential constitutional values like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity in all types of governance.
•Procedural Fairness: Right to a transparent and fair process, including evidence and reasoning access.
•Digital Due Process: Translating classic due process safeguards into the digital environment, promoting fairness in AI-driven legal systems.
•Presumption of Innocence: Legal principle assuming that a person is innocent until guilt is determined.
•AI-assisted Decision Making: AI use to aid, rather than replace, judicial analysis and judgment.
The Proof
India’s First Steps: SUPACE and SUVAAS
India’s judiciary has commenced cautiously embracing AI. The Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency (SUPACE) was initiated in 2021 to support judges with legal analysis and research, and SUVAAS was created as a tool for legal translation. These efforts are destined to enhance efficiency while diminishing administrative load.
Nonetheless, the common characteristic of both systems is non-autonomy that they do not displace judicial reasoning. SUPACE helps in sorting out evidence or precedent search, but the decision is left with the judges. This is indicative of a constitutionally aware approach that eschews excessive delegation of discretion to non-human actors.
United States Example: COMPAS & State v. Loomis (2016)
The U.S. criminal justice system’s application of the COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) algorithm to sentencing elicited due process concerns. The defendant in State v. Loomis contended that the opaque AI models’ use was a denial of his right to a fair hearing because the system’s methodology was proprietary and could not be criticized.
Although the Wisconsin Supreme Court supported COMPAS usage, it emphasized caution, issuing warnings not to rely on such tools as the sole determiner. The case blasted open the floodgates for legal argument over algorithmic accountability and procedural justice, making clear that all AI deployment must be constitutional.
Ethical AI vs. Biased AI
AI is not unbiased, it has the same prejudices inherent in its training data or assumptions underlying its construction. The 2019 ProPublica analysis of COMPAS found that the algorithm over-represented Black defendants as “high risk,” and under-represented risks among white offenders.
This algorithmic bias violates the constitutional promise of equality before the law (Article 14). In India, where socio-economic and caste prejudices are firmly entrenched to begin with, such biased outputs could further entrench injustices unless regulated carefully.
Right to Privacy and Article 21
AI used for surveillance and predictive policing tends to harvest extensive amounts of individual data, thus threatening digital privacy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), India’s Supreme Court proclaimed the Right to Privacy as an intrinsic component of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.
Thus, any AI deployed in the justice system will have to meet the proportionality test defined in Puttaswamy: legality, necessity, and proportionality. In the absence of statutory support and protections, AI systems applied in law enforcement or litigation could be unconstitutional.
Global Standards and Regulatory Models
The European Union’s AI Act
The EU AI Act (2024) is the world’s first overall AI law. It categorizes AI systems by risk categories (unacceptable, high, limited, minimal) and subjects high-risk use cases, such as judicial and policing applications, to rigorous transparency, human oversight, and non-discrimination requirements.
This approach prioritizes “explainable AI”, transparency audits, and accountability principles that are rule of law-compatible.
China’s Algorithm Regulation
China’s strategy entails algorithm filing and examination procedures through its Internet Information Service Algorithmic Recommendation Management Provisions (2022). Efficient as it may be, its regulation tends to be viewed through a state-security prism and not rights-based constitutionalism.
India: No Formal Law Yet
India today does not have a specific legal regime for AI. The Digital India Act and Data Protection Act (2023) provide limited protection, but not the utilisation of AI in the delivery of justice. With no law in place, the judiciary will have to be guided by general constitutional principles causing unpredictability and space for judicial excess or absence of regulation.
Case Laws
1. State v. Loomis (2016) – United States
Issue: The defendant objected to the use of the COMPAS algorithm for sentencing on the ground that it offended due process since the algorithm was a proprietary “black box” model.
Judgment: The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the use of COMPAS but cautioned that such tools should not be the exclusive foundation for judicial rulings.
Significance: Emphasized the need for transparency of algorithmic decision-making and stressed human oversight.
2.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) – India
Issue: Whether the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 and is essential for autonomy and dignity.
Significance: Forms the bedrock of constitutional resistance to AI tools that violate informational autonomy and digital due process.
3.Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – India
Issue: Constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act, criminalizing online speech.
Judgment: The Court invalidated Section 66A as violative of Article 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression).
Significance: Highlighted the significance of procedural protections under digital regulation a principle that is equally relevant to AI systems.
4.Riley v. California (2014) – United States
Issue: Whether it is lawful for police to search digital data on a cell phone without a warrant.
Judgment: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that data in the digital age is entitled to constitutional protection, necessitating warrants for access.
Significance: Enhances the right to informational privacy and restricts the use of AI monitoring devices.
5.Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – India
Issue: Application of scientific methods such as narco-analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph tests without consent.
Judgment: The Court ruled that these methods infringe Article 20(3) and the right to mental privacy.
Significance: Offers a legal analogy to counter the non-consensual or secretive application of AI in criminal justice.
6.A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Issue: Preventive detention and the ambit of Article 21.
Judgment: Initially had a limited view of personal liberty.
Significance: Overruled subsequently, but its evolution highlights the increasing significance of procedural fairness, now applicable in the context of AI-driven decisions.
7.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Issue: Revocation of passport without just procedure.
Judgment: Extended the meaning of Article 21 to cover fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness.
Significance: Deploys a benchmark that any AI-led legal action must abide by.
Conclusion
The question of whether regulating AI in the justice system is ethical or unconstitutional must be answered by placing constitutional values at the center of innovation. AI is neither inherently good nor bad, it is shaped by the intentions and mechanisms behind its deployment.
Unregulated AI may violate:
•Article 14 – if it produces discriminatory outcomes.
•Article 21 – if it infringes privacy or undermines fair trial rights.
• Article 19(1)(a) – when employed to chill expression through surveillance.
Conversely, properly regulated AI can increase:
• Access to Justice – by automating mundane tasks.
• Efficiency and Consistency – through rule-based decision support.
• Judicial Economy – enabling courts to concentrate on sophisticated reasoning.
Regulation is therefore not a threat to liberty but a measure to constitutionally discipline technology. India needs a Rights-Based AI Law that:
• Guarantees explainability and transparency in judicial AI.
• Mandates human-in-the-loop for all legal decisions.
• Bans high-risk or biased AI deployments.
• Establishes data protection norms specific to justice delivery.
Ethics without law is toothless; law without ethics is blind. Only a whole-of-government approach can guarantee AI serves the ends of justice without encroaching upon the fundamental rights of persons.
FAQs
Q1. Is it possible for AI to replace judges in India?
No. Indian judicial AI tools such as SUPACE are assistive. Judicial discretion and reasoning belong to human judges.
Q2. Is AI for predictive policing legal in India?
There is no specific law that allows or prohibits it. It needs, however, to conform to the privacy rights under Article 21 and be subject to the Puttaswamy proportionality test.
Q3. What are the dangers of AI in court decisions?
Dangers encompass algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, infringement of due process, invasion of privacy, and loss of human accountability.
Q4. Has India legalized AI in the justice system?
There is no legislative law. Judicial ethics, constitutional principles, and generic digital governance models guide existing usage.
Q5. Does regulation of AI amount to constitutional freedom violation?
No. Rather, regulation ensures conformity with the constitution. Left unregulated, AI is more likely to infringe on freedoms than uphold them.
Q6. Are private companies allowed to supply courts with AI systems?
Yes, but such a system will have to face rigorous judicial review, data protection mechanisms, and explainability requirements.
Q7. What can India learn from international models?
India can borrow lessons from the EU AI Act and develop a rights-oriented, risk-based categorization model for legal-sector AI tools.
