AI Technology Must Be Used To Assist Judges, Not Replace Them: Bombay High Court Justice Ravindra Ghuge

In the times when the judiciary is witnessing 'digitisation', the use of artificial technology (AI) should not be treated as a 'substitute' for human judgment and it cannot be used as a replacement of judges in decision making as judicial decision making is not a mechanical process but involves conscience of a judge, said Justice Ravindra Ghuge of the Bombay High Court.

Speaking at the Economic Times Global Legal Convention, on March 13, the judge said,

"Technology must assist judges, not replace them. Artificial intelligence may analyse data, identify precedents, or summarise legal arguments. But the act of judging, the balancing of rights, the weighing of evidence, the exercise of discretion remains an inherently human responsibility. As has often been emphasised in judicial discourse, technology can augment the judicial mind, but it cannot replace the conscience of the judge. The justice system is not merely about resolving disputes. It is about upholding dignity, rights, and constitutional values. Technology must, therefore, be aligned with these enduring principles."

Justice Ghuge stated that the Indian judiciary presently stands at a remarkable intersection of tradition and transformation. He pointed out that the constitutional courts were designed in an era of paper files, physical courtrooms, and oral arguments recorded only in memory or handwritten notes.

"Yet, today we inhabit a different reality. Electronic filing, virtual hearings, digital case management and artificial intelligence assisted tools are gradually redefining how courts function. Technology, when responsibly deployed, offers tremendous possibilities for the justice system. The legitimacy of our justice system rests on public trust. Trust is built on three pillars: accessibility, transparency, and efficiency. Technology, when used wisely, can reinforce each of these pillars," Justice Ghuge said. 

Reforms such as 'live-streaming' which gives a feeling of being 'inside' the court, without being there physically, the judge said, is not merely an 'administrative' reform but an 'institutional transformation' in access to justice. 

While speaking about the efficiency of technology, the judge said that digitisation of court records and case management systems enables better monitoring of pendency and faster retrieval of documents. The judge, however, emphasised that technology should be used only to 'assist' the courts.

"However, it is essential to emphasise that such technologies must remain assistive, not determinative. Judicial discretion, human empathy, and constitutional values cannot be automated. Indeed, as we embrace digital transformation, we must remain mindful of the ethical and constitutional dimensions that accompany it. As courts adopt technology, constitutional values must remain the guiding compass," Justice Ghuge said. 

One of the foremost concerns, the judge said, is data security and privacy as courts handle some of the most sensitive information in society.

"As judicial records move into digital environments, robust safeguards must ensure that confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of data are protected," the judge underlined. 

In his address, Justice Ghuge explained how 'digital divide' is one of the most important concerns at the time when judiciary is being transformed with the help of technology.

"While embracing technology, we must guard against the temptation to treat it as a substitute for human judgment. Judicial decision-making is not a mechanical process. It involves empathy, moral reasoning, and contextual understanding, the qualities that cannot be replicated by algorithms. Recent judicial observations have cautioned against uncritical reliance on artificial intelligence in legal processes," Justice Ghuge underscored. 

The future of digital justice cannot be shaped by the judiciary alone. It requires partnerships between judges, lawyers, technologists, policymakers, and the civil society. Legal innovation must be informed by technological expertise, and technological design must be guided by legal ethics and constitutional safeguards, the judge said. 

Justice Ghuge made it clear that if technology is to succeed in transforming the justice system, it must strengthen the one element upon which the judiciary ultimately rests and that is the public trust and confidence.

"Public trust is not created merely by faster systems or digital platforms. It is built when citizens believe that courts are accessible, transparent, fair and humane. Technology must therefore be designed with ethical safeguards. Questions of data privacy, algorithmic bias, cybersecurity, and digital exclusion must be addressed with seriousness. A digital system that excludes the poor or technologically disadvantaged, would contradict the constitutional promise of equal access to justice. In a country like India, where millions still struggle with digital literacy and connectivity, technological reforms must always be accompanied by institutional sensitivity and inclusiveness," the judge said. 

The judge further said that the lawyers in this process of 'technological transformation' are not mere participants in judicial process but are its intellectual architects and therefore, urged legal professionals to adapt skills and ethical frameworks as the technology reshapes litigation practices.

"The Bar must ensure that technological efficiency does not overshadow professional integrity and that advocacy continues to be guided by the highest traditions of the profession. As we look to the future, the task before us is not merely technological modernisation. It is institutional imagination. We must imagine a justice system where court processes are efficient yet humane, technology enhances transparency without compromising privacy and digital tools assist judges without diminishing judicial independence," the judge concluded.