Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant while addressing a symposium on ‘Ensuring justice for the common man: strategies for reducing litigation costs and delays’ stressed on the importance of human judgment and stated that technology should be used to amplify it not replace it.
The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led to the technology replacing human intervention and its being used extensively, but it has become clear that AI cannot replace human intelligence.
There is no denying that technology has transformed the justice delivery system. E-courts, virtual hearings, digital case management, and AI-assisted legal research have helped reduce delays, cut costs, and improve access to justice—particularly for the common man who often bears the brunt of prolonged litigation. In a country like India, burdened with millions of pending cases, such technological interventions are not just desirable but necessary.
Everyone is aware of the fact that technology comes with its own shadows. In an age of deep fakes and digital arrests, the use of AI in the judiciary has to be done in a very systematic manner. Technology must remain a servant of justice, not its substitute. It should amplify human judgment, not replace it.
Increasingly, AI-driven tools are being used to analyse precedents, predict outcomes. While these tools can enhance speed and consistency, they cannot replicate the nuanced reasoning, empathy, moral discernment, and contextual understanding that humans bring to the courtroom.
Human intelligence is shaped by experience and conscience. It remains irreplaceable.
Challenge before every department and industry is not whether to adopt technology, but how to do so responsibly. Clear safeguards, ethical guidelines, and oversight are essential to ensure that AI enhances efficiency without undermining rights. Ultimately, the goal of reforms is not speed alone, but meaningful results.
As India adopts Artificial Intelligence it must ensure that the digital revolution strengthens, rather than dilutes, the human soul of the system. In the offices, technology may assist, but it is human judgment that must continue to decide.
A reform that excludes the poor, elderly, or digitally unfamiliar is not reform at all, it is regression. The system where the executive, legislature and judiciary work in tandem is a viable mechanism which benefits the common people. India needs to ensure that the final decision should lie with humans and not machines. |
