AUTHOR: P. Naga Lasya Sri, Christ Academy Institute of Law.
TO THE POINT
Artificial intelligence (AI) is significantly revolutionizing India’s felonious justice system by furnishing tools for prophetic policing, facial recognition, forensic analysis, and judicial robotization. While these advances promise to overcome current crimes and resource limitations, they also raise significant legal and ethical enterprises about sequestration, responsibility, and algorithmic demarcation. The lack of devoted AI laws in India’s legal frame further complicates the scene, calling for critical reforms to guarantee that technological inventions enhance, rather than detention, justice delivery.
ABSTRACT
AI’s integration into Indian felonious law is transubstantiating the judicial system, from police examinations to courtroom proceedings. Automated facial recognition, and AI- powered forensic tools are formerly in use, speeding operations and enhancing results. still, these advancements present new challenges, including the eventuality of algorithmic demarcation, pitfalls to civil freedoms, and gaps in legal responsibility. India’s current legislation, particularly the Information Technology Act, Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), warrant specific vittles’ for AI, demanding immediate variations. This paper examines both the revolutionary eventuality and the legal challenges of AI in Indian felonious law, using current case studies and legal developments to recommend a balanced, rights-defensive approach for the future.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The use of artificial intelligence in felonious justice involves abecedarian legal principles similar as due process, reasonable dubitation, the presumption of innocence, and the right to sequestration. Prophetic policing algorithms, facial recognition technology (FRT), and AI- driven forensic analysis must cleave to the principles of legitimacy and procedural justice outlined in the Indian Constitution. The Information Technology Act of 2000 establishes a broad frame for digital substantiation and cybersecurity, whilst the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 control substantial and evidential principles. still, the lack of special law (specialized legislation) for AI opens problems about algorithmic responsibility, data sequestration, and on-discrimination, revealing gaps in present justice and nonsupervisory control.
The Proof
The evidence AI’s integration into Indian felonious law is not theoretical; it’s now being. Prophetic Policing the Delhi, Hyderabad, and Punjab police departments use AI- powered crime mapping and analytics (similar as CMAPS) to descry crime hotspots and distribute coffers more effectively. These systems use once crime data, societal patterns, and geospatial information to anticipate where crimes are likely to do, allowing for visionary police. Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) The Delhi Police’s AI- powered FRT examines over 100 CCTV feeds to match suspects to a database of 250,000 culprits, allegedly working crimes in milliseconds. FRT is also used to identify suspects snappily at Punjab’s Integrated Command and Control Centre (IRCC). AI- Powered Forensics AI improves the delicacy and speed of DNA and point analysis, speeding up examinations and lowering mortal error. Judicial robotization The Supreme Court’s SUPACE system automates legal exploration and case operation, while the Punjab and Haryana High Court has experimented with AI tools similar as ChatGPT to gain contextual legal perceptivity. Despite these advancements, some obstacles remain Algorithmic Bias AI systems trained on poisoned literal data run the threat of continuing estate, class, or neighbourhood profiling, which can lead to discriminative policing and legal consequences. Private and Civil Liberties the expansive use of FRT and prophetic analytics raises fears about mass surveillance and the corrosion of individual private rights. Responsibility and translucency Without defined legal morals, determining responsibility for AI- driven judgments is gruelling, especially when the algorithms are personal or opaque. Regulatory Gaps India lacks a technical legislative frame for AI in felonious justice, performing in confusion over the admissibility of AI-generated substantiation, algorithms’ translucency norms, and avenues for requital.
CASE LAWS
While Indian justice on AI in felonious law is still developing, several cases and legal principles are applicable
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy( Retd.) v. Union of India( 2017) The Supreme Court honoured the right to sequestration as a abecedarian right under Composition 21. This precedent is pivotal when assessing the legitimacy of AI- driven surveillance and data collection by law enforcement.
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) The Court held that involuntary administration of certain scientific ways (e.g., narco- analysis, lie detector) violates the right against tone- imputation. By analogy, the use of AI- grounded substantiation must admire indigenous protections and procedural fairness.
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) The Court emphasized the significance of procedural safeguards in felonious examinations, which extends to the deployment of AI tools to help arbitrary or discriminative practices.
International Reference – European Court of Human Rights (S. and Marper v. United Kingdom, 2008) The Court ruled that indefinite retention of DNA and point data violates sequestration rights, pressing the need for clear limits on biometric data use — an issue directly applicable to AI- powered FRT in India.
CONCLUSION
AI has the implicit to transfigure India’s felonious justice system, addressing systemic crimes and resource restrictions. still, its perpetration must be accompanied by strong legislative measures to help algorithmic bias, cover sequestration, and assure responsibility. The lack of technical AI legislation in India creates significant loopholes, risking deliveries of justice and abuses of abecedarian rights. critical legislative reforms are needed to produce clear morals for AI deployment, translucency, and requital, icing that technology progress advances the cause of justice rather than destroys it. A multidisciplinary, rights- grounded approach — embedded in indigenous principles and guided by global stylish practices is needed for the proper objectification of AI into Indian felonious law.
FAQS
What is the role of AI in Indian criminal law today?
Artificial intelligence is utilized in predictive policing, facial recognition, forensic analysis, and judicial automation to aid law enforcement and courts enhance efficiency and accuracy.
What are the main legal challenges posed by AI in criminal justice?
Key challenges include algorithmic discrimination, privacy threats, a lack of transparency, and a lack of established legal requirements for AI accountability and evidence.
Are there any laws specifically regulating AI in India’s criminal justice system?
No. Existing laws, such as the IT Act, BNS, and BSA, provide broad frameworks but do not address AI-specific concerns, demanding immediate legislative adjustments.
How does AI-driven policing risk reinforce social biases?
AI systems trained on historical data may replicate or amplify existing biases, leading to over-policing or discrimination against marginalized communities.
What safeguards are needed for responsible AI use in criminal law?
Reforms should mandate algorithmic transparency, independent audits, data protection, and clear avenues for accountability and redress, ensuring AI tools comply with constitutional rights and procedural fairness.
REFERENCES
Predictive policing techniques used by Delhi and Hyderabad police for crime data analytics and hotspot identification.
The use of facial recognition software by Delhi and Uttar Pradesh police to expedite suspect identification.
AI-powered forensic tools improving DNA and fingerprint analysis accuracy in Indian investigations.
The role of risk assessment algorithms in influencing judicial bail and sentencing decisions in India.
Implementation of SUPACE for case management and legal research automation in the Indian judiciary.
Experimental use of ChatGPT by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for contextual legal insights.
The Information Technology Act, 2000, as part of India’s current regulatory framework for digital evidence and cybersecurity.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, as the new substantive criminal law in India.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, modernizing evidentiary rules and recognizing AI-generated digital records as primary evidence.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023, addressing consent-based processing of personal data and AI deployment.
Concerns about algorithmic bias and the risk of over-policing marginalized communities due to reliance on historical data.
Ethical and legal challenges posed by the absence of specialized AI legislation in India1.
The Telangana Police data breach as an example of the risks of indiscriminate surveillance and data collection failures.
Use of AI-powered speed detection and traffic enforcement systems in Delhi and Bengaluru, including privacy and accuracy concerns
