Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming part of everyday life, from smartphones to online shopping. Naturally, it has also entered discussions around the legal system and courts. But when it comes to Supreme Courts, the world’s highest judicial bodies, the approach to AI is careful, gradual, and deeply rooted in constitutional values. This article explains the topic from the basics to advanced legal concerns, using simple language and real-world context.
Why AI Has Become Relevant for the Supreme Court
The Indian judiciary faces long-standing challenges:
- Huge case pendency
- Limited judicial resources
- Language barriers across states
- Increasingly complex litigation
To address these issues, the Supreme Court has shown openness to technology-assisted solutions, including AI-based tools. The objective is clear: improve access to justice and administrative efficiency, not replace human judges.
How AI Is Being Used in the Supreme Court of India
AI in the Indian judicial system is currently used only in supportive and non-decisional roles.
Some real and existing uses include:
- Case listing and management assistance
- Legal research support
- Transcription of court proceedings
- Translation of judgments into Indian languages
A key example is SUVAAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), an AI-based system introduced to translate Supreme Court judgments into regional languages. The Court has clearly stated that these translations are only for reference, while the original judgment remains legally authoritative.
This shows the Court’s firm position: AI may assist the process, but cannot influence judicial outcomes.
What the Supreme Court Has Publicly Said About AI
Senior judges of the Supreme Court, including former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, have made several public statements in judicial forums and conferences highlighting the Court’s position on AI.
The key points repeatedly emphasized are:
- AI can enhance efficiency and access to justice
- Judicial decision-making requires human reasoning, empathy, and constitutional understanding
- Technology must remain subordinate to judges, not the other way around
These statements reflect judicial clarity rather than uncertainty.
Constitutional Principles That Limit the Use of AI
The Supreme Court’s cautious approach is rooted directly in the Constitution of India.
1. Reasoned Judgments (Articles 14 and 21)
Under constitutional jurisprudence, every judicial decision must be:
- Reasoned
- Non-arbitrary
- Open to challenge
AI systems cannot independently explain legal reasoning in a way that satisfies constitutional standards.
2. Due Process and Fair Procedure (Article 21)
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life and personal liberty includes fair procedure.
If AI tools were to influence judicial decisions:
- Litigants may not understand how outcomes were reached
- Errors may become difficult to challenge
This would violate due process protections under Article 21.
3. Judicial Accountability and Independence
Judges are constitutionally accountable for their decisions. AI systems:
- Cannot bear responsibility
- Cannot be questioned or cross-examined
- Cannot be held liable for errors
Delegating decision-making to AI would undermine judicial independence, a core feature of the Constitution.
Why the Supreme Court Draws a Clear Red Line
The Supreme Court of India has never approved:
- AI-written judgments
- Automated bail decisions
- Algorithm-based sentencing
- Predictive constitutional rulings
The Court’s reasoning is simple and consistent:
Judging involves discretion, values, and human understanding—elements that technology cannot replace.
AI, Open Justice, and Public Trust
Indian constitutional courts function on public confidence. The Supreme Court has often stressed that justice must not only be done, but must also appear to be done.
If people believe that:
- Algorithms influence outcomes
- Decisions are shaped by opaque systems
trust in the judiciary could erode. This concern plays a major role in shaping the Court’s restrained approach to AI.
