Technology Fit For Judicial Use Only If It Improves Fairness & Access : Zambia Supreme Court Judge Abha Nayar Patel

Technological tools should not be used in courts unless they improve both the fairness of outcomes and access to justice, Justice Abha Nayar Patel of the Supreme Court of Zambia said on Thursday, while cautioning that unchecked innovation can merely “digitize” existing inequalities.

“Every innovation we adopt in the justice sector must pass through two filters before it reaches the courtroom. Does it improve the fairness of the outcome? And does it improve access to that outcome for those who need it the most?” Justice Patel said.

She added, “If a tool fails either of the two tests, it is not yet fit for judicial use no matter how impressive its engineering.”.

Justice Patel was delivering a lecture on the “Future of Justice Delivery: Innovation, Inclusion, and Integrity”, organised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V Mohana also addressed the event.

Justice Patel said that innovation, inclusion, and integrity in the justice system could not be treated as separate considerations. “Innovation without integrity is dangerous. Integrity without inclusivity is incomplete, and inclusivity without innovation is often too slow to matter,” she said.

She highlighted that judiciaries across the world are experimenting with case management systems, e-filing, virtual hearings, AI-assisted legal research and predictive analytics for case flow. Some jurisdictions, she noted, have gone further and piloted AI tools to assist, but not replace, judicial reasoning in high-volume, low-complexity matters.

She shared that Zambia is taking “slow but meaningful steps” towards digitisation of court records and virtual testimony. These measures were partly adopted out of necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic but are now recognised as tools for improving access.

Justice Patel, however, cautioned that technology in a courtroom is not a neutral instrument. “An algorithm trained on historic sentencing data will reproduce historic biases unless we build the safeguards to prevent it,” she said.

Similarly, she said, virtual hearings could improve access for a litigant who has a smartphone and stable internet connection while excluding another litigant who has neither. “Innovation unexamined does not eliminate inequality. It can simply digitize that inequality,” she said.

Standards For Court Technology Must Be Developed By Judiciary

Justice Patel called for clear judicial and professional standards governing the use of technology in courts. She said these standards should be developed by the judiciary itself rather than imposed from outside.

“We need clear judicial and professional standards for the use of technology in our courts, and standards developed by the judiciary itself, not imposed upon it from outside, and not left to develop merely by accident,” she said.

She said that collaboration between jurisdictions, judicial networks and alliances could help develop shared standards so that innovation in courts, arbitration and mediation does not “outpace the ethical scaffolding meant to hold it up”.

She emphasised that while technological tools may assist judges, judges must continue to own their reasoning and the responsibility for their decisions. “Integrity, I add, is a discipline of humility. It requires us, the judicial officers, to say clearly, this tool assists my reasoning, but the reasoning and the responsibility remains mine alone…That principle must never be permitted to erode. No matter how sophisticated our instruments become,” she said.

Justice Patel also called upon the Bar to take a leading role in developing the ethical and regulated use of such tools so that they are used to assist and not mislead the court.

“At the same time, we expect the bar to take a lead role to mentor and develop the ethical and regulated use of these tools so that they are used to assist and not mislead the court. AI hallucination is real. The courts are dealing with it amid challenges of resources, infrastructure, and capacity,” she emphasised.

She also stressed the need for accountability when AI is used for legal research or case triage. On virtual hearings, she highlighted the need to preserve the solemnity and gravity associated with courtroom proceedings so that justice is not merely done but “felt by every litigant”.

She further highlighted the importance of safeguards against the risk of predictive analytics used for prioritising cases favouring well-resourced litigants who can navigate the system over unrepresented litigants who cannot.

Backlogs Erode Public Confidence

Justice Patel pointed out the case for innovation in courts was not about novelty for its own sake, but about reducing delays.

Sharing Zambia's experience with judicial timelines, She noted that Zambia's civil procedure prescribes that matters ordinarily proceed from the close of pleadings to trial within months. Its commercial courts, she said, have shown that timelines can be honoured when case management is disciplined.

However, in more complex High Court and appellate matters, a gap remained between the timelines contemplated by procedure and the reality experienced by litigants, she said. “Backlogs erode public confidence far more corrosively than any single controversial ruling of the court,” Justice Patel said.

She said that technology, when used wisely, was one of the few tools through which courts could meaningfully reduce timelines without compromising the quality of justice.

Inclusivity Is Unfinished Business

Justice Patel emphasised that inclusivity in justice delivery should not be reduced to a slogan. “Inclusivity in justice means that the woman in a rural district who has never seen the inside of a courthouse can nonetheless understand what her rights are and how to assert them. It means that language, literacy, disability, distance, and cost do not quietly determine who receives justice and who does not”, she said

She highlighted that inclusivity also required representation on the Bench, at the Bar and within institutions that shape legal policy to reflect the societies they serve. Justice Patel said, “Inclusivity is not a modern invention. It is unfinished business, generations in the making, and it remains ours to carry forward to its logical conclusion.”

Justice Patel also noted that mediation and alternative dispute resolution are tools that could promote inclusivity because they can be less costly, less intimidating and more responsive to the lived realities of parties. However, she emphasised that these mechanisms must also be held to rigorous ethical standards of fairness and must not be allowed to become “a lesser justice”.

She added that case management skills, timelines and formal rules should also be seen as tools of inclusivity because they assist adjudicators in dispensing justice in a clear and transparent manner.

Justice Patel pointed out that future justice systems would also have to deal with increasingly cross-border disputes and litigants from diaspora communities with connections to more than one legal culture. “A justice system fit for the future must be capable of speaking to and being understood by a public far more mobile and far more interconnected than one our founding legal frameworks were designed for,” she said.

Concluding, Justice Patel stressed that innovation, integrity and inclusivity must advance together. “Innovation without integrity risks building faster paths to unjust outcomes. Integrity without inclusivity risks preserving a system that is honest, but only honest for those who can reach it. And inclusivity without innovation risks good intentions that arrive too late to matter in a world moving faster than our institutions,” she said.

She said every new tool adopted by the judiciary should be tested against fairness, every reform should be measured against its reach, and gains in efficiency should never come at the cost of public trust.

“The future of justice delivery will not be won by choosing between these three values. It will be won by judicial leadership and by all of us in this room insisting that they advance together, that every new tool we adopt is tested against fairness, every reform we pursue is measured against reach, and every efficiency we gain is never purchased at the cost of the public's trust. This is not an easy balance to strike, but it has never been the business of this profession to choose the easy path. It has always been our business to choose the correct path”, she concluded.

In his address, CJI Surya Kant spoke about the judiciary's technological transformation and stressed that AI should assist, but not replace, human judicial decision-making. He also highlighted the Supreme Court's draft AI regulations and technology initiatives aimed at improving judicial administration and access to justice such as “One Case One Data” and AI powered judgment translation.

Justice Vikram Nath stated that institutions must be open to questioning and accountable for the powers entrusted to them. He stressed that justice is a “collective enterprise” involving judges, lawyers, court staff and others who participate in the process.

Justice V Mohana emphasised that justice could not be truly inclusive if it remained accessible only to those who could afford to travel to courts, engage lawyers or understand a complex legal system. She highlighted that while technology could overcome barriers such as distance, AI could only assist justice and could not replace human judgment.