Supreme Court Takes Cautious Stand: AI Won’t Shape Judgments

Judges are handling artificial intelligence tools with great care and do not plan to let them replace human judgment, the Supreme Court said during a hearing. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stressed that courts would not allow technology to dominate judicial decision-making.

The remarks came while a division bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard a petition. The plea had sought limits on what it described as unregulated use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in different parts of the judicial system.

Artificial intelligence in judicial system: concerns raised in plea

The petitioner’s counsel argued that some courts had issued orders that relied on case law which did not exist. The counsel suggested this resulted from unchecked dependence on artificial intelligence tools and requested formal safeguards and directions from the Supreme Court.

Responding to these submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant told the lawyer, "We use it in a very over conscious manner. We do not want this to overpower our judicial decision-making power. If you have good suggestions, you can give that on the administrative side," indicating any policy changes would be considered institutionally, not through this petition.

Artificial intelligence in judicial system: court stresses human oversight

The bench accepted that judges needed to remain alert to potential errors, including fake citations produced by artificial intelligence systems. However, the judges made clear they were not persuaded to frame binding directions on how courts should handle such technology at this stage.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said, "Yes, they (judges) must be aware of this and cross-check as well. Judges must also check the same. This is a part of the judicial training academy, and it is taken care of. With the passage of time, the bar will also learn and we (judges) will also. That does not mean we have to issue directions," highlighting that training and experience would guide responsible use.

After the court’s observations on judicial caution and existing training measures, the petitioner chose not to press the case further. The bench then recorded the position and dismissed the plea as withdrawn, leaving future policy on artificial intelligence to administrative processes within the judiciary.