Author: Souyash Mitra
Introduction
Few technological advancements in the recent times have generated as much excitement and anxiety as Artificial Intelligence. Critics and commentators, both alike routinely predict that Artificial Intelligence is going to disrupt the legal industry and render many human actors defunct and extinct.Similar fear has been expressed about the justice system and the actors involved in it.
A Profession Historically Resistant to Change
Before understanding the potential impact of AI over the Indian legal system, one has to first remember and then appreciate the institutional character of the Indian Legal System. The legal domain in India has been historically resistant to all the sweeping weathering changes of many disruptions and advancement, especially the technological advancements. Layers of bureaucracy and the deep continuous preference for established practice have consistently decelerated the deep infestation of the technological advancements into everyday legal practice. Thus, it is needless to say that this has consistently slowed the adoption of new tools and methods.
This immense conservatism is visible even in regulatory decision-making bodies. Legal regulatory bodies like the Bar Council of India has traditionally approached such disruption with considerable caution and even has taken a step back to prioritise stability over experimentation and demonstrate a strong tendency to preserve the status quo. They have approached the Indian Legal System of transition in a rather gradual way than a sudden disruptive change. Against this backdrop, the idea that artificial intelligence will dramatically and immediately change the profession ,at the best appears, overrated.
Efficiency vs. Transparency: The Due Process Risks of Judicial AI
Before exploring the possibilities of AI in the Indian Judicial System, one needs to first discover the risks of AI that is cohesive with it . In an already fragile landscape, where an individual or an entity comes to seek justice , one needs to explore the risks inherent with it. Earlier, technological advancements have already transformed the way legal research was being conducted. Artificial Intelligence represents a further evolution of this trajectory enabling the judiciary to access, summarize, and synthesize vast volumes of legal information with unprecedented speed and efficiency.
However applying this irrespective of the scale, fundamentally threatens the gurantee of due process,which comes from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution . 21’s protection of life and personal liberty and Article 14’s safeguard against arbitrariness. A cornerstone of this protection is the right of the accused to a reasoned order. While a legal officer or a judge can explicitly articulate the logical and evidentiary steeping stones that can lead to a conclusion, AI cannot be expected to offer a reasoned and sequenced reasoning. Many , advanced AI systems operate as a ;”Black Boxes” – proprietary algorithms where even the developers cannot fully trace the origin of the reasoning and thus, leading to an extreme risk of miscarriage of justice.
IIf a judge were to rely on such an AI system to deny bail or determine a sentence, the resulting order would lack transparent reasoning. A defendant cannot cross-examine a machine, nor can an appellate court effectively review a decision whose underlying logic remains hidden.
One of the core problems revolving around the AI systems is the confidentiality of the proceedings. Many AI systems store a large amount of their data in their respective cloud databases and the breach of these databases is not a mammoth task.
Algorithmic Bias and the Abdication of the Judicial Mind
The impact of Artificial Intelligence will also vary considerably depending on how it is installed inside the judiciary process. Proponents of judicial AI often argue that machines unlike, humans are more free from prejudice. This fundamentally misunderstands how these algorithms functions. These AI algorithms do not possess independent reasoning, they are fed with vast numbers of historic data, which they recognize and then infer patterns.One has to keep in mind that the vast number of historical data that is fed into the algorithms contains systemic, societal biases—such as disproportionate policing of specific socio-economic or marginalized communities—the AI will inevitably replicate and amplify these disparities.
This will inevitably strike at the heart of the conscience of the courtroom. In an Indian Judicial System, burdened with millions of pending cases and the hope of the helpless people , the temptation to xerox copy the AI’s recommendation to fasten the case disposal rate is profound.Thus, relying on AI without human intervention and logic leads to abdication of the judicial mind.
The Rigidity of AI Systems and the Dynamic Nature of Law
Beyond, demographic biases, one needs to keep in mind that artificial intelligence systems suffer from temporal rigidity which clashes with the dynamic nature of jurisprudence. We need to keep in mind that the very doctrine of the Indian Constitution which our forefathers made is based on the;” Doctrine of Living Tree”; which is the bedrock for every law being formulated, articulated or amended in the country to deliver justice. AI systems are mechanical constructs chained by the historic databases and information it is fed with. They do not update organically or in real-time. But Justice is not a rigid mathematical formula. Each case has its own merits and needs to be treated with individual and special care. The Indian Legal System has long established that the law is a living organism that reflects prevalent social norms, contemporary morality, and evolving human perspectives. Because society is dynamic in nature, the law governing it cannot be rigid or bound by chains . If determinative justice were outsourced to an AI system, the resulting jurisprudence would be frozen in the past. An algorithm would mechanically apply outdated societal standards to modern disputes, rendering it completely incapable of delivering the kind of progressive, transformative justice that a changing society requires.
Conclusion
The introduction of Artificial Intelligence into the Indian judicial system opens up a significant constitutional issue. The temptation of unrivalled efficiency is undeniable in a context plagued by large delays, but this speed must not infringe on essential constitutional rights. The use of opaque “black boxes” algorithms is a direct violation of the due process safeguards enshrined in Article 14 and Article 21. The accused is entitled to a transparent and reasoned decision. In addition, the use of historically biased data and rigid models is against the dynamicity of jurisprudence, which is in sharp contrast to the “Doctrine of Living Tree” and progressive development of law.
The way forward lies not in a total rejection of technological progress, but in a prudent adjustment of its role. AI should be restricted to administrative, clerical and preparatory work such as case management, synthesis of data and preliminary legal research and not to decisive adjudicatory functions. The highest authority of judgement requires the empathy, the sense of contemporary morality, and the conscience directed by the constitution, which must be left to man alone.
There is a certain irony here. The effective use of artificial intelligence will require the judiciary to first learn its profound limitations. To safely integrate AI, judges must become sufficiently technologically literate to recognize the “black box” problem, algorithmic bias, and the constitutional dangers of automation bias, ensuring that technology serves justice rather than eroding it.
