As artificial intelligence (AI) continues its rapid evolution, its potential application across various sectors has sparked lively discussions worldwide. One area garnering increasing attention is its use in the judiciary. With a backlog of millions of pending cases, the Indian judicial system is looking towards AI as a potential solution to enhance efficiency.
Experts agree that AI could play a significant role in reducing case backlogs and streamlining court operations. Vivek Agarwal, country head of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBIGC), points to Japan’s successful use of AI in drafting judgments for procedural matters as a positive example. However, Agarwal also highlights challenges specific to India, such as the potential for algorithmic bias based on caste or gender, language barriers, lack of technology infrastructure, inconsistent data formats, and judges’ reluctance to embrace AI.
Despite these challenges, several Indian high courts are already experimenting with AI tools for administrative purposes. The Supreme Court of India alone has over 66,000 pending cases, with millions more in high courts and lower courts. Legal experts suggest that AI could be utilized to improve administrative efficiency and even handle complex tasks like reviewing evidence.
The Indian judiciary is actively incorporating AI in legal research, translation, and predictive justice. The Supreme Court launched SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Courts Efficiency) in 2021 to assist judges with relevant case laws and precedents. They also introduced SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), an AI tool that translates judgments and orders into nine regional languages.
Indian datacentric AI companies are also making strides in the judicial space. Nyaay AI, a product of Mumbai-based Indika AI, offers solutions like automated case filing, defect detection in filings, and smart case triaging to determine urgency. The system also assists with judgment research and machine translation. Hardik Dave, founder of Indika AI, emphasizes the importance of data localization and privacy, ensuring that AI deployments are compliant with local regulations and sensitive information is anonymized.
Lawyers see significant potential for AI in specific areas. Large law firms are quickly adopting AI to handle routine tasks such as research, drafting, and client presentations, enabling lawyers to focus on litigation. Suvarna Mandal of Saikrishna and Associates envisions AI’s role in automating case scheduling, drafting orders, flagging cases for alternative dispute resolution, and managing case files.
Justice Gautam Patel, a former judge of Bombay High Court, is even more optimistic, believing that AI can handle complex tasks currently requiring human intervention. He suggests that AI can detect patterns in legal decisions, assist in policymaking, and aid in case management. For example, AI could analyze case distribution trends based on geography or age, providing policymakers with data to allocate resources effectively, like increasing the number of judges in overloaded courts.
While AI’s potential in the judiciary is undeniable, it also faces criticism. Experts argue that AI, lacking the expertise of legal practitioners, might not fully account for ethical standards and legal requirements. Former chief justice of Bombay and Rajasthan high courts, Pradeep Nandrajog, and former vice president of the Supreme Court’s e-court committee, justice R.C. Chavan, highlight AI’s limitations in adjudication, emphasizing that each case is unique and cannot be solely based on patterns or past precedents.
They contend that AI cannot account for human factors like corruption, omissions, or subjective nuances common in litigation, especially in India. Chavan questions whether legal outcomes should be determined by rigid algorithms rooted in the past, arguing that AI could hinder the evolution of legal principles. Nandrajog also expresses concern about AI’s inability to handle culturally nuanced cases, such as phonetic trademark disputes, where regional pronunciation differences could impact outcomes—something AI might not interpret accurately.
Some worry that over-reliance on AI could lead to unintended consequences. Akshat Pande, managing partner at Alpha Partners, warns that judges, meant to uphold equality and neutrality, might develop a preference for AI’s suggestions, potentially resulting in biased decisions that contradict citizens’ fundamental rights.
As AI technology continues to advance, the pressure to adopt it within the judiciary will likely increase, particularly in overburdened systems like India. Justices Patel and Chavan emphasize that while AI is valuable, it should not dictate judgments. They advocate for AI’s role in streamlining court operations, but believe that the substantive adjudication of cases should remain in human hands.
Companies promoting AI echo this sentiment, acknowledging that courts should not aim to replace human judgment entirely. Hardik Dave of Indika AI emphasizes that AI will assist judicial processes, but fully automated verdicts, especially for complex cases, remain unlikely. However, AI could handle minor, non-contentious cases where quick resolutions are needed.
In conclusion, AI holds significant promise for the Indian judiciary. However, careful implementation, addressing ethical concerns, and preserving the integrity of legal principles are essential. Striking a balance between AI’s potential and the crucial role of human judgment will be critical in ensuring a just and efficient legal system for the future.
