Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

Justice B.R. Gavai, who is set to become India's next Chief Justice in May 2025, has recently voiced significant concerns regarding the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judicial systems. Speaking at an event in Nairobi on "Leveraging Technology within the Judiciary," Justice Gavai states that while technology offers numerous benefits, its implementation must be approached with careful consideration of its limitations. His remarks come at a critical juncture as courts worldwide grapple with the rapid advancement of AI technologies and their potential applications in legal proceedings. 

Can Machines Truly Deliver Justice? 

• AI systems lack the fundamental human qualities of empathy and emotional intelligence that are essential for understanding the human dimensions of legal disputes. 
• Justice Gavai explicitly stated that "the essence of justice often involves ethical considerations, empathy, and contextual understanding - elements that remain beyond the reach of algorithms." 
• Complex legal cases frequently require moral reasoning and value judgments that cannot be reduced to computational processes or mathematical formulas. 
• Human judges bring life experience, cultural understanding, and societal context to their decisions that AI cannot replicate regardless of its programming sophistication. 
• Legal precedents are interpreted through evolving social standards and contemporary values, requiring a nuanced approach that current AI technologies cannot achieve. 
• The human element in judicial decision-making ensures accountability and connects legal outcomes to the society they serve in ways that algorithmic decisions cannot. 

What Risks Do AI Legal Research Tools Pose? 

• Justice Gavai highlighted documented cases where AI platforms like ChatGPT have generated completely fabricated case citations and non-existent legal precedents. 
• Legal professionals relying exclusively on AI-generated research have submitted court documents containing falsified legal references, resulting in professional embarrassment and potential ethics violations. 
• AI systems can process vast amounts of legal information quickly but lack the critical ability to verify sources with the discernment that human researchers apply. 
• The speed of AI-generated content creates a false sense of reliability that may lead to diminished scrutiny of legal sources and authority. 
• Algorithmic biases present in AI training data can perpetuate or amplify existing prejudices in the legal system without the ethical oversight that human researchers provide. 
• Over-reliance on AI for legal research risks eroding the research skills and critical thinking abilities of legal professionals over time. 

How Should Courts Integrate Technology? 

• Justice Gavai states that technology must serve as an aid to judicial processes rather than replacing human judgment in core decision-making functions. 
• Indian courts have embraced digital tools to improve administrative efficiency while maintaining judicial discretion in substantive legal matters. 
• Implementation frameworks should clearly delineate which aspects of legal work can be automated and which require preserved human involvement. 
• Courts must develop comprehensive training programs to ensure judges and legal staff understand both the capabilities and limitations of AI tools. 
• Technology integration should focus on reducing administrative burdens while enhancing, not diminishing, the quality of human legal reasoning. 
• Regular evaluation of technological systems is necessary to prevent overreliance and ensure they continue to serve rather than undermine judicial independence. 

Who Controls Judicial Content in the Digital Age? 

• The judiciary now faces challenges with unauthorized content creators who upload edited clips of court proceedings that sensationalize or misrepresent legal discussions. 
• These manipulated videos create public misunderstanding about complex legal proceedings and undermine trust in judicial institutions. 
• Intellectual property questions regarding the ownership and control of judicial recordings remain largely unresolved in many jurisdictions. 
• The unauthorized monetization of court content by social media channels raises serious ethical concerns about the commercialization of justice. 
• Justice Gavai states the need for "clear guidelines on the usage of live-streamed proceedings" to balance transparency with responsible reporting. 
• Courts must develop comprehensive frameworks for managing digital content that protect judicial integrity while maintaining appropriate public access. 

What is the Current Status of AI in India's Judicial Framework? 

• India currently lacks specific legislation governing AI in the judiciary, with MEITY serving as the lead agency for strategic AI oversight. 
• NITI Aayog has established seven responsible AI principles focusing on safety, inclusivity, privacy, transparency, and accountability. 
• The Supreme Court of India has implemented an AI tool since 2021 that assists judges in information processing without influencing judicial decision-making. 
• S.U.V.A.S. (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) serves as a translation tool for legal documents between English and local languages. 
• The Punjab & Haryana High Court referenced ChatGPT in the Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab case, though the AI input was used only for general perspective on bail jurisprudence. 
• Data protection in India is primarily governed by the Information Technology Act, with the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill awaiting enactment. 
• The pending data protection legislation would empower individuals to inquire about data collection, processing, and storage by both private and governmental entities. 
• Fundamental rights such as privacy continue to be enforced through the constitutional courts. 
• Despite technological adoption, India maintains a cautious approach that preserves human judicial decision-making. 
• No formal guidelines currently exist regarding the use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT in Indian judicial proceedings. 

How are Other Countries Implementing AI in Their Judicial Systems? 

• The United States employs C.O.M.P.A.S. (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) to predict recidivism risks in criminal sentencing, despite controversy over potential bias. 
  • A Manhattan federal judge fined a lawyer $5,000 in 2023 for submitting fictitious legal research generated by ChatGPT, including non-existent cases. 
  • Predictive policing algorithms are being used in the U.S. to allocate law enforcement and court resources more effectively. 
• China has pioneered AI courts that handle small claims, minor disputes, and preliminary procedures, significantly reducing the burden on human judges. 
  • Chinese AI judicial applications include document review, legal research, and sentence recommendations based on precedent. 
• Estonia leads the European Union in AI adoption, using automated systems to resolve small claims disputes without lengthy court procedures. 
• Finland has implemented AI for case management and decision-making in administrative matters to streamline processing. 
• The UK judiciary issued guidelines in December 2023 permitting judges to use ChatGPT for basic tasks like text summarization but prohibiting its use for legal research or analysis. 
• Ethical concerns regarding transparency, bias, and public trust remain significant barriers to wider AI adoption in judicial systems globally. 
• Despite varying levels of implementation, most jurisdictions maintain human oversight for substantive legal decision-making.

Conclusion

Justice Gavai’s warnings highlight the need for balance in integrating AI into the judiciary. While technology enhances efficiency and access to justice, it cannot replace human empathy, moral reasoning, and judgment. Courts must embrace innovation while ensuring AI serves as a tool, not a substitute, for just legal decision-making. Establishing clear guidelines will be crucial to maintaining judicial integrity and public trust.