AI in Judiciary – Significance & Challenges – Explained Pointwise

Recently, the Kerala HC has published a set of guidelines for AI use by district judiciary. As the first policy in the country directly addressing AI use in judicial processes & setting out strict safeguards, it is timely.
AI tools, from document translation to defect identification in filings, are expected to improve the speed & efficiency of our judicial system, however, the use of these tools are not without risks.

What is the significance of AI in Judiciary?

1. Reducing Case Backlogs & Delays: AI tools can assist with case prioritization, scheduling, and tracking. By analyzing case timelines and historical data, AI can predict which cases are likely to be delayed, allowing court staff to allocate resources more effectively.
2. Promoting Accessibility & Inclusivity: AI-powered tools like the Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVACE) can translate legal documents and judgments from English to various Indian languages, breaking down language barriers and making legal information more accessible to the public. 
3. Legal Research: AI tools can analyze historical judgments, statutes, and legal texts to identify relevant precedents and legal arguments in a fraction of the time it would take a human. This helps lawyers to build stronger cases and judges to make more informed decisions. 
4. Predictive Analytics: AI can analyze patterns in past judgments to provide predictive insights into potential case outcomes. This can contribute to a more consistent application of the law, reducing the element of subjective judgment in similar cases. However, this is primarily for informational purposes and does not determine the final ruling.
5. Transparency & Public Trust: Digital records and AI-powered dashboards improve transparency in judicial processes, enabling effective monitoring and public accountability. The e-Courts initiative and AI tools make court proceedings and orders more visible and easier to follow for the public.

What are the challenges?

1. Biasness & Ethical Concerns: AI can perpetuate prejudices found in historical legal data, leading to potentially discriminatory outcomes based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status. Bias in criminal risk profiling or sentencing recommendations can undermine the principles of justice and fairness.
2. Accuracy & Reliability: AI tools may produce inaccurate results, fabricate information (AI hallucinations), or generate fake legal citations and facts, which poses dangers for judicial decision-making. Dependence on unreliable or incomplete databases can further skew outcomes. For e.g. OpenAI’s Whisper, an AI-powered speech recognition system, was reported to hallucinate entire phrases & sentences, especially when people spoke with longer pauses between words.
3. Complexity of Legal Reasoning: Human judgment in law involves nuanced interpretation, contextual understanding, moral reasoning, and empathy, which AI currently struggles to replicate.
4. Human Rights & Due Process: Replacing or heavily supplementing human judgment with algorithmic decision-making can threaten fundamental rights—such as the right to a fair trial and appeal. Over-reliance could reduce complex human experiences to mere statistics. At more structural level, AI risks reducing adjudication into rule-based interferences, overlooking the combination of human judgement, a specific context, and relevance of precedents that impact judicial decision making.
5. Lack of Regulation: India lacks comprehensive legislation or clear policy for regulating AI use in the judiciary; most existing rules are adapted from older laws not tailored for AI’s complexities. As a result, courts in India have shown inconsistent approaches to AI adoption, with some encouraging cautious use and others, like Kerala High Court, banning AI tools from judicial decision-making.

What can be the way forward?

1. Capacity Building: Conduct nationwide training for critical AI literacy for judges, court staff, and lawyers to raise awareness, build digital literacy, and promote effective use of AI tools. In addition to capacity building to use AI tools, programmes are also required to understand the limitations of the systems deployed. Judicial academies & bar associations, in collaboration with AI governance experts, are well placed to facilitate such capacity building.
2. Human Oversight & Judicial Discretion: AI should be an assistive, not a substitute, tool—final decision-making authority must always remain with human judges. Require judicial officers to review and, if necessary, override AI-recommended outcomes when context or justice so demand.
3. Develop Regulatory & Ethical frameworks: Enact legislation and guidelines that define the permissible uses of AI in courts with emphasis on human rights, fairness, accountability, and explainability. Mandate regular audits and ethical reviews of AI tools used in judicial processes to ensure they are unbiased and transparent.
4. Address Biasness Issue: Use diverse, updated, and representative datasets for developing and training AI systems to minimize bias and errors. Continually monitor, validate, and retrain AI models to avoid perpetuating systemic injustice.
5. Right to be informed: Guidelines are needed to shape individual use of generative AI for research & judgement writing. If AI is used in adjudication process, litigants must have a right to be informed. Similarly, litigants & lawyers have a right to know if AI is being used in certain courtrooms. Litigants may be allowed to optout of pilots or fully-deployed AI if they have any concerns about safeguards or human oversight.
6. Experts’ help: Dedicated specialists of AI in courtrooms can give the courts clearer guidance in adopting AI tools as part of comprehensive planning. Vision Document for Phase-III of eCourts Project acknowledges the need to create technology offices to guide courts in assessing, selecting, and overseeing the implementation of complex digital solutions like AI.

Conclusion:
Adoption of AI in judiciary is significant to make it more efficient, accessible & transparent, however, it should not eclipse the nuanced reasoning & human decision-making that is at the heart of the adjudicatory process.