Using AI In Judiciary Is Not About Creating Robotic Judges; Justice Manmohan

At the event held on 29.11.2025 in Delhi on the theme “Transforming Justice Delivery System with AI & Technology,” the Judge highlighted a critical disconnect in the current legal framework. He observed that while the world has shifted into a digital arena, the laws being interpreted remain rooted in the physical world, creating friction when dealing with modern digital assets such as NFTs and digital art.

He underscored that while courts are the custodians of the Constitution and protectors of citizens' rights, the judiciary must confront a crucial question: whether traditional procedural frameworks are equipped to address complex, technology-driven 21st-century disputes. He cautioned that the justice system cannot progress by relying solely on outdated methods, remarking that “we cannot drive into the future while looking into the rearview mirror.”

Scale, Speed, and Access: Why Technology Is Now a Judicial Necessity

He underlined that the adoption of technology is no longer optional but indispensable, given the unprecedented scale at which the Indian judiciary operates. Serving a population of 1.4 billion, the court system is currently burdened with over 50 million pending cases, a number that represents not statistics but millions of citizens awaiting relief and justice.

He noted that the traditional model of adjudication has inherent physical limits—there are only limited working hours and an insufficient judge-to-population ratio of just 21 judges per million, far below global standards. This imbalance, he said, cannot be corrected through incremental measures and requires a force multiplier, which technology provides. Recalling the COVID-19 pandemic, he emphasized how the crisis accelerated judicial modernization, with courts nationwide shifting almost overnight to virtual hearings. The successful conduct of millions of video-conference hearings demonstrated that the Indian judiciary is not rigid but adaptive, capable of embracing innovation to keep the justice system functioning even under extraordinary circumstances.

AI in Judiciary: Moving from Automation to Augmentation

The Judge observed that the justice system is transitioning from the age of information to the age of intelligence, where AI has the potential to understand and analyze data—not merely store it—to significantly enhance judicial efficiency. Clarifying misconceptions, he stressed that the judiciary is not moving toward “Robo-Judges” but toward augmented intelligence, where AI tools assist and empower judges rather than replace human discretion. Highlighting key innovations, he noted that the Supreme Court's SUVAS system has become a transformative tool, enabling rapid translation of judgments into vernacular languages and thereby deepening access to justice for millions of litigants.

He further pointed to SUPACE, an AI-driven research assistant capable of processing large volumes of case material within seconds to help judges identify relevant facts and precedents. Additionally, the Supreme Court's adoption of AI-based real-time transcription for Constitution Bench hearings has ensured accurate records of oral arguments. Justice Manmohan emphasized that beyond these developments, AI holds tremendous potential for docket management, including grouping thousands of similar cases—such as those arising from the same land acquisition—to streamline hearings and reduce delays.

Global Lessons on AI in Justice Systems

He emphasised the importance of studying international experiences as India develops its own AI framework for the judiciary. He noted that countries across the world have adopted varying levels of technological integration, offering both successful models and cautionary examples. In China, Internet Courts now dispose of millions of cases entirely online, using AI for routine functions and resolving matters within minutes—an approach that, while efficient, raises concerns about the impersonality of justice.

In the United States, AI tools like COMPAS are used in criminal justice to assess the risk of re-offending and guide decisions on bail and sentencing. However, Justice Manmohan cautioned that India cannot replicate these models blindly. Given India's constitutional ethos, vast social diversity, and complex litigation landscape, he stressed the need for a bespoke, human-centric approach, where AI operates under a “human-in-the-loop” system—serving as an aid to the judiciary rather than replacing judicial discretion.

Ethics, Bias & Constitutional Concerns in AI Adoption

Justice Manmohan cautioned that while AI offers transformative potential, it also brings serious constitutional and ethical challenges that must be addressed before large-scale integration into the justice system. The foremost concern, he noted, is algorithmic bias, since AI systems trained on historical data may inadvertently replicate entrenched patterns of discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, or economic status. Citing the example of the COMPAS risk-assessment tool in the United States—which ProPublica found to disproportionately flag African-American defendants as “high risk”—he warned that technology intended to aid justice can just as easily perpetuate injustice. Stressing India's commitment to substantive equality, he said that no opaque, “black box” algorithm should undermine decades of progressive constitutional jurisprudence. Any AI used by the judiciary must therefore be transparent, explainable, and preferably open-source.

He further highlighted privacy and data protection as critical challenges, given the judiciary's access to highly sensitive personal information. AI systems must ensure confidentiality, restrict misuse, and respect principles such as the Right to be Forgotten. Additionally, Justice Manmohan underscored the risk of a widening digital divide, noting that many lawyers and litigants in rural areas still struggle with connectivity and digital literacy. Technology, he emphasised, must democratize access to justice—not create a two-tier system that advantages the urban elite while marginalizing those with fewer resources.

Judging as an Art: Why the Human Element Remains Irreplaceable

Emphasising that adjudication is fundamentally an art and not a mechanical exercise, he highlighted that the essence of judging lies in balancing competing principles, understanding human frailty, and applying the “healing touch” of equity. While AI can analyse vast volumes of legal text, he noted, it cannot grasp the spirit of the law—nor can it perceive human pain, detect coercion in a trembling voice, or recognise truth in emotional nuance. In criminal matters especially, sentencing requires a delicate balance of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation—an inherently human exercise beyond the reach of algorithms. Justice Manmohan stressed that although AI may increasingly handle repetitive administrative tasks, the judge's role will not diminish. Instead, technology will free judges to devote more time to complex reasoning, constitutional interpretation, and the delivery of empathetic and principled justice.

A Hybrid Judicial Future: Technology with a Human Core

He outlined a forward-looking vision for a “Hybrid Justice System” that seamlessly integrates physical and digital processes to maximise efficiency without compromising judicial values. He stressed the need to drastically reduce the administrative burden on judges so that their time can be devoted almost entirely to core judicial functions. For high-volume, small-value matters—such as traffic challans, minor civil disputes, and cheque-bounce cases under Section 138 of the NI Act—he advocated expanding Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and deploying AI-assisted mediation platforms capable of resolving millions of disputes before they reach the courts.

He further highlighted the potential of predictive justice tools, which analyse large sets of precedents to offer litigants a probability of success. Such insights, he said, could encourage early settlements, promote “Samvad” (dialogue), and significantly lighten the caseload of courts.

He emphasized that realizing this future requires a transformational shift in legal education, with law schools teaching not only procedural law but also the fundamentals of technology and programming to prepare future lawyers for an AI-driven justice ecosystem.

Concluding his address, he reminded that technology is a tool, not a talisman; it must serve the rule of law rather than supersede it. The integrity and independence of human judges remain the ultimate guarantee of justice. He urged the legal community—judges, lawyers, and technologists alike—to be wise architects of this new era, adopting AI with openness but also caution, ensuring that innovation never comes at the cost of constitutional values or human empathy.