The Supreme Court has made its position clear on the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal system, stating that while technology can assist judicial processes, it must not be used to prepare court verdicts or make judicial decisions.
The apex court’s draft guidelines on AI usage in the judiciary allow the use of AI tools for administrative functions, legal research, document management, translation, and transcription. However, the guidelines prohibit AI from participating in judicial decision-making, evaluating evidence, determining case outcomes, or drafting judgments.
According to the proposed framework, judges must retain complete authority over legal interpretation, factual analysis, and the delivery of justice. The court emphasized that judicial reasoning requires human understanding, ethical judgment, and accountability—qualities that cannot be delegated to algorithms.
The move comes amid increasing global discussions on the role of AI in courts and legal systems. While AI technologies have demonstrated the ability to process large volumes of information quickly, concerns remain regarding accuracy, bias, transparency, and the potential generation of misleading or fabricated legal content.
Legal experts have welcomed the Supreme Court’s balanced approach, noting that AI can significantly improve efficiency in court administration while safeguarding the fundamental principle that justice must be delivered by human judges.
The judiciary has already been exploring AI-powered tools for language translation, transcription of court proceedings, and legal research support. These applications are expected to help reduce delays and improve access to justice without compromising judicial independence.
The draft regulations have been released for public feedback, and stakeholders are expected to contribute suggestions before the final rules are implemented.
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into public institutions, the Supreme Court’s stance reinforces a crucial principle: technology may assist the justice system, but the responsibility of delivering justice must remain with human beings.
