Hybrid Hearings Are Here To Stay, AI Cannot Replace Human Adjudication : Judges At Chandigarh Panel Discussion

A panel discussion on “Judges: Present and Future” was organised by the Chandigarh International Arbitration Centre in collaboration with Indian International Disputes Week at the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The discussion brought together members of the judiciary from India and abroad to deliberate on the evolving role of judges amid rapid technological advancements in the legal system.

The panel featured Justice Arun Monga from Rajasthan High Court, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Justice Harkesh Manuja from P&H High Court, Judge Sukhi Gill , first-tier Tribunal Judge, Ministry of Justice, UK, Judge Manpreet Monica Singh, Civil Court, Texas(US). The session was moderated by Senior Advocate Anand Chhibbar.

Post-COVID Digital Transformation of Courts

Speaking on the impact of technology on the judiciary, Justice Arun Monga said the digitisation of courts accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a clear “pre- and post-COVID paradigm shift”.

“This entire digitalisation happened at the time of Covid. So there has been a pre and post Covid paradigm shift,” he said. He noted that virtual court hearings had significantly improved accessibility, particularly for cross-border legal practice.

“Trans-border lawyers can easily come on video conferencing instead of spending money on tickets and being physically present,” Justice Monga said, virtual hearings also help decongest courts and reduce traffic around court complexes..."it has many cascading effects."

However, he cautioned that virtual hearings cannot fully replace physical proceedings.

“We cannot possibly have final or long hearings because original human voice is music to the ears and computer voice is not,” he remarked.

Highlighting the digital divide in India, Justice Monga emphasised the need to integrate technological systems across the country. Citing Rajasthan as an example, he said litigants often travel long distances to attend court.

“In Rajasthan, people travel up to 1200 kilometres to come to court because it is the largest state in the country. The video-conferencing facility therefore helps greatly,” he said.

Responding to a question by moderator Senior Advocate Anand Chhibbar on whether virtual courts should remain a permanent feature, Justice Monga said the answer was clear.

“For the benefit of lawyers, yes. It is there to stay. You don't have to be tech geeks, but you have to be tech-savvy. It is perform or perish. It is here to stay as a hybrid mode,” he said.

Government Litigation and Virtual Adjudication

Addressing the issue of the government being the largest litigant, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said the phenomenon must be viewed in context.

“The government, with its vast administrative setup, has its priorities. That is why they are not able to look at every dispute in time,” he said.

He added that while the government remains the biggest litigant, it is also the country's largest employer.

“Government being the biggest litigant should not be viewed negatively. It is also the biggest employer,” he observed, while acknowledging that some litigation could be avoided.

Justice Bhardwaj noted that video conferencing could be particularly useful for administrative matters. "You can call officers through video conferencing. It is a handy tool,” he said.

Rethinking 'Pendency' in Courts

On the issue of judicial backlog, Justice Bhardwaj questioned the conventional understanding of “arrears”.

“What do you mean by arrears? The figures you usually see in newspapers — but are they right for adjudication?” he asked.

“Statistics record a case the moment it is filed. But does it become an arrear immediately? Is it mature for adjudication?” he added, noting that cases should only be classified as arrears once mandatory timelines have been crossed.

Justice Bhardwaj also pointed to a downside of digital hearings, stating that technical glitches are sometimes used as excuses to avoid arguments.

“As a judge, you are made to look into cases which are non-existent. That delays adjudication,” he remarked.

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Work, Tools Like LiveLaw Helps In Finding Better Law Points Cases

Justice Harkesh Manuja spoke about the growing role of artificial intelligence in legal practice and adjudication, while stressing the need for caution.

“My take on AI is that we should go ahead with it, but with a little bit of caution, it is going to help judiciary, but don't handover adjudicatory process to AI, he said.

He noted that AI-based tools can help identify relevant legal precedents and assist judges in analysing legal issues more efficiently.

“There are engines which can help find better law points like LiveLaw, SCC etc…” he said.

Justice Manuja also highlighted the emergence of predictive legal technologies.

“In AI, predictive analysis is also available. The government can use these tools to assess the probability of success in an appeal,” he said.

Referring to emerging Indian tools, he cited systems that attempt to predict bail outcomes by analysing FIR details and case patterns.

“There is an Indian bail predictive system where you can give the FIR and it predicts the success of bail,” he said.

Justice Manuja further observed that some courts are already experimenting with technology that can summarise large case files.

“Judges of the Kerala High Court told me they are using a tool which can generate a summary of an entire file. We are lagging behind. We have to work a lot — and that will save time,” he said.

When asked whether formal AI training should be introduced for students, young lawyers and judges, Justice Manuja said the learning process should begin with judges themselves.

“Rather than training youngsters, it should start with us. Youngsters are already tech-savvy,” he remarked.

He also suggested that legal education should incorporate computer and AI courses.

Technology, Transparency and Open Justice

Speaking about courtroom transparency and confidentiality in the context of digital proceedings, Judge Sukhi Gill explained that the UK justice system places strong emphasis on open justice.

“In the UK, it is transparent and open justice. Tabloids are actively encouraged to come and participate. We do not have justice behind closed doors,” she said.

At the same time, she noted that sensitive proceedings are handled with strict access control.

“There are certain courts which are not open to the public. Those are strictly monitored and only certain people have access,” she added.

Judge Jinder Singh Bora also emphasised the need for updated technology for both judges and lawyers, noting that the UK spends significant resources on judicial software.

“In the UK, millions of pounds are spent on software used by judges. The technology is good, but it should also be made available to lawyers, otherwise it serves little purpose,” he said.

Technology Must Not Replace Human Creativity

Concluding the discussion, Senior Advocate Kshitij Sharma reflected on the balance between technology and human judgement.

“My father is 72, I am 42 and my son is 10. When we go for a drive, we still have not forgotten to take a walk in the park and embrace the beauty around us,” he said.

“Even while driving, we do not shut our eyes — we remain alert. Let AI not replace the creativity and ingenuity of the human mind. Let us remember that the Almighty has blessed us with a beautiful mind,” he added.

[In picture: Senior Advocate Kshitij Sharma]