Artificial intelligence can’t deliver justice; tech must remain enabler in courts: Judges

Cautioning against over-reliance on artificial intelligence in courts, Justice Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Saturday asserted that technology might assist judicial processes, but it could neither replace the judicial mind nor be allowed to undermine fairness, accessibility and the human element in decision-making.

AI as enabler

“AI can assist, but never be the deliverer of justice,” Justice Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court declared on Saturday, while warning that unchecked reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) risked undermining judicial responsibility and the human element in decision-making.

Admonishing blind reliance on AI and digital tools in the justice delivery system, Justice Masih warned that “technology should not ultimately make justice a casualty”. He was in Chandigarh for delivering the keynote address at the North Zone-I Regional Conference on “Advancing Rule of Law through Technology: Challenges & Opportunities”.

Setting the tone, Justice Masih asserted that courts must carefully calibrate the extent to which technology was allowed to influence judicial decision-making: “Use it as a tool. Use it as a facilitator. But it will always be upon us, the judges, to take the call,” he said, while cautioning that algorithms and AI could not substitute judicial mind and human sensitivity.

Also present during the two-day event were Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Chief Justice, Justice Sheel Nagu, the high court judges, National Judicial Academy Director Justice Aniruddha Bose and president of Chandigarh Judicial Academy’s Board of Governors Justice Suvir Sehgal. The Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia is also attending the event.

AI misuse and fabricated precedents

Backing his concerns with instances from court experience, Justice Masih revealed how AI-generated pleadings had begun to infiltrate litigation, sometimes with alarming consequences. He cited cases where there were “judgments which were self-produced. There were never any judgments to that effect,” adding that even entire paragraphs were fabricated.

Justice Masih pointed out that the counsel relied on AI-generated content without verification: “Believing that the counsel had relied upon a judgment, we could have been influenced into thinking that there is already a precedent on that.”

Calling it an “added responsibility,” Justice Masih stressed: “Don’t go by what is presented to you alone… you need to be very careful, cross-check.” He also referred to situations where lawyers failed to even explain pleadings drafted using AI, remarking that “when it comes to delivering in the court, the lawyers are unable to do that.”

Human element cannot be replaced

Emphasising that justice was not a mechanical exercise, Justice Masih said: “Justice does not mean deciding cases alone. There is always a human aspect which is always missing in a mechanical manner.” He cautioned against reducing adjudication to mere algorithmic outputs, while insisting that empathy and judicial discretion remained central to the process.

Digital divide and access concerns

Raising a larger systemic concern, Justice Masih flagged the risk of technological exclusion. While digital systems simplify procedures for many, they might alienate others. “We have said we are making things easy for the litigant, but are they aware as to how to use it… or even whether it exists or not?” he asked, questioning whether technological reforms were truly reaching the masses.

Justice Masih stressed the need to ensure that ultimate users—litigants—were equipped and informed, adding that mere introduction of systems without awareness defeated the purpose.

One-size-fits-all approach unsuitable

Pointing to India’s diversity, Justice Masih cautioned against uniform technological solutions. “One system may probably not be enough. Each State would have to adapt and bring in its own changes,” he said, while referring to differences in culture, geography and access.

Call for solutions, not just problems

In a sharp message to stakeholders, Justice Masih urged the judiciary to move beyond flagging deficiencies and start proposing workable solutions. “Let’s not merely put forth the problems… let’s try and find our own solutions and then implement them,” he said, adding that the executive was supportive and the judiciary was required to clearly articulate its requirements.

Towards balanced integration

Summing up, Justice Masih said the conference provided a platform to evolve a balanced approach where technology enhances efficiency—especially in procedural aspects—without undermining core judicial functions.

Technology must remain enabler

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu asserted that “technology must remain an enabler, not a determinant”: Emphasizing that efficiency could not come at the cost of fairness, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Saturday asserted that technology in courts must remain “an enabler, not a determinant,” cautioning that the responsibility of decision-making must always rest with judges.

Chief Justice Nagu asserted that the real question before the judiciary was not whether technology had a place in the system, but “how it should be integrated without disturbing foundational principles.”

“The rule of law is not an abstract expression. It is what assures every individual that justice will be administered fairly, consistently and impartially,” he said, adding that every judicial order and proceeding contributes to sustaining that trust.

Balancing efficiency with fairness

Chief Justice Nagu noted that rapid digitisation—ranging from electronic records to faster communication—had transformed court processes, bringing efficiency and convenience. However, he cautioned that these developments must be assessed against the justice system’s enduring principles of fairness, transparency, accessibility and reasoned decision-making.

“Efficiency and speed are important, but they cannot be pursued at the cost of thoughtful adjudication,” he asserted, reiterating that while technology may assist, “the responsibility of decision-making must rest with the judge.”

Access and digital divide flagged

Raising concerns over inclusivity, he warned that technological advancement could inadvertently exclude sections of society. “While technology may simplify procedures for many, it may also create barriers for those with limited resources,” he observed “The idea of justice must remain inclusive, and no section of society should feel distanced from the system on account of technological advancement.”

The Chief Justice also pointed to the unprecedented speed of information flow in the digital age, noting its implications not only for society but also for court functioning. He said these emerging challenges did not have “simple answers” and required a calibrated response grounded in judicial wisdom.