Artificial Intelligence in Courts – Prospects and Risks

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the most transformative technologies of the twenty-first century, and its potential application in the justice delivery system is increasingly being explored across the globe. Courts, often criticized for delays, backlog, and inefficiency, are looking to AI-based tools as a means of improving access to justice and enhancing efficiency. In India, where judicial pendency has reached alarming levels with over four crore cases pending, the prospect of using AI in courts has gained prominence. The idea is not to replace judges but to support them with technological tools that assist in decision-making, research, and case management. However, while the prospects are promising, the risks associated with AI in courts are equally serious, requiring careful balance between innovation and constitutional safeguards.

The prospects of AI in courts are wide-ranging. AI can streamline legal research by analyzing vast databases of judgments, statutes, and precedents in seconds, saving valuable time for judges and lawyers. It can also assist in case management, predicting timelines, and identifying bottlenecks that cause delays. Natural language processing tools can help translate judgments and legal documents into regional languages, promoting inclusivity in a multilingual country like India. AI can also aid in drafting routine orders, such as bail or adjournments, thereby allowing judges to focus on more complex adjudication. Countries like Estonia and China have already experimented with AI-driven “virtual courts” for small claims and administrative disputes, demonstrating the global potential of such technologies.

Predictive justice is another possible use, where AI tools analyze past case data to forecast likely outcomes. This can guide lawyers in advising clients and help courts in ensuring consistency of decisions. Similarly, AI-driven e-filing systems can screen cases for jurisdictional defects, reducing procedural delays. In India, projects like SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency) reflect early efforts to use AI for research and case filtering. These applications show that AI has the potential to significantly enhance efficiency, reduce pendency, and improve accessibility in courts.

Despite these prospects, the risks of AI in courts are profound and cannot be ignored. A major concern is the issue of bias and fairness. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, and if past judicial data contains social, gender, or caste-based biases, AI tools may replicate or even amplify those biases. This can threaten the constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14. Another risk lies in transparency and accountability. Judicial decision-making requires reasoned orders, but AI operates through algorithms that may not be easily explainable to litigants. A “black box” form of justice undermines the principle of natural justice and the right to a fair trial.

Further, the use of AI raises serious concerns about privacy and data protection. Court records contain sensitive personal and financial information, and misuse or breach of this data could have devastating consequences. The absence of a comprehensive data protection law in India heightens these risks. There is also the danger of over-reliance on AI tools, which may erode human judgment, empathy, and discretion—qualities that are central to adjudication. Unlike routine administrative tasks, judicial decisions involve moral reasoning, balancing of interests, and application of constitutional values, functions that cannot be delegated to machines.

The introduction of AI in courts must therefore be approached with caution and guided by constitutional morality. The judiciary must ensure that AI remains an assistive tool rather than a decision-maker. Clear guidelines on the permissible scope of AI use, accountability mechanisms for errors, and safeguards against bias are essential. Training of judges and lawyers in AI tools is equally important to ensure effective use without over-dependence. A phased approach, beginning with administrative and research-related applications, may be preferable before moving to areas that directly impact rights and liabilities of litigants.

In conclusion, artificial intelligence offers immense prospects for improving the efficiency, accessibility, and consistency of courts, particularly in a country like India where judicial delays are endemic. At the same time, risks relating to bias, accountability, transparency, and privacy cannot be ignored. The road ahead lies in harnessing the benefits of AI while safeguarding the constitutional principles of fairness, equality, and justice. AI must complement, not replace, human judges, ensuring that the justice delivery system remains humane, transparent, and accountable while embracing technological innovation.