AI Can Improve Judicial Efficiency but Carries Significant Risks

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in legal and judicial work, including legal research, drafting, case management, hearing transcription and summarising submissions. With India facing a substantial backlog of cases, AI offers opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce delays. However, its use raises concerns about accuracy, bias, transparency and accountability.

AI tools can process large volumes of legal information faster than humans and assist judges and lawyers in routine tasks. International examples demonstrate this potential. Internet courts in Hangzhou, China, have reported significant reductions in hearing times through AI-assisted case management, while Estonia uses automated systems for transcription and the removal of sensitive information from documents. In India, courts are also exploring digital and AI-assisted processes.

However, AI systems can reproduce biases present in their training data. Risk-assessment tools in the United States have faced criticism for assigning disproportionately high risk scores to Black defendants, while a Dutch welfare-fraud detection system reportedly discriminated against applicants based on nationality.

Another major concern is AI hallucination, in which systems generate false information that appears credible. AI tools may produce fabricated legal citations or inaccurate case summaries. Such errors can mislead courts, compromise the rights of litigants and undermine the fairness of judicial proceedings. The risks are particularly serious in criminal cases, where unreliable evidence or assessments may affect personal liberty.

Need for Human Oversight and Strong Regulatory Safeguards

The Supreme Court of India has expressed concern about the use of fabricated legal authorities and inaccurate AI-generated material in judicial proceedings. In July 2026, it highlighted the potentially serious consequences of such errors while setting aside a National Company Law Tribunal judgment. The Court has also proposed guidelines emphasising human oversight, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence.

AI should therefore remain an assistive tool rather than replace judicial decision-making. Judges and lawyers must independently verify legal citations, evidence and factual claims against authentic sources before relying on AI-generated outputs.

Institutions introducing AI into courtrooms should establish clear accountability mechanisms, technical safeguards and regular evaluations of system reliability. The extent of oversight should depend on the nature of the case and the potential consequences of an error.

Legal professionals, law schools and professional associations must also develop AI-related training and update ethical standards. Lawyers should understand both the capabilities and limitations of these technologies.

The objective should be to harness AI to strengthen access to justice without compromising due process, fairness or judicial independence. A transparent framework that clearly separates machine assistance from human judgment is essential for responsible adoption of AI in the judiciary.