With judges overwhelmed and trials stretching into decades, next-gen AI tools promise to transform India’s justice delivery. But experts warn that without safeguards, the cure may create new risks.
A System on the Brink
India’s judiciary is groaning under the weight of nearly 5 crore (50 million) pending cases, according to the National Judicial Data Grid. At the current pace, it could take over 300 years to clear the caseload. Nearly 80% of prisoners remain undertrials, and with just 21 judges per million people, India has one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios in the world.
Courtrooms across the country still rely heavily on stenographers, clerks, and British-era filing systems. Judges are often forced to dictate orders while stenographers type, or spend hours searching for files buried in record rooms. This backlog has led to routine adjournments, delayed bail hearings, and a justice delivery system that many citizens see as broken.
India to Honour Top CISOs from Police, Law Enforcement, and Defence Forces
Tech to the Rescue?
Against this backdrop, courts are turning to artificial intelligence. Companies like Nyaay AI, Jhana AI, and Adalat AI have built tools tailored for Indian courts, trained on local languages, jargon, and workflows. These platforms offer e-filing automation, document defect detection, case summarisation, and multilingual translation—tasks that once consumed weeks of manpower.
The results are already visible. A judge in South India found that recording a witness statement that once took 60 minutes can now be completed in 10 minutes. Nyaay AI has partnered with 16 high courts, the Supreme Court, and even Singapore’s judiciary, while Adalat AI’s transcription tools are being deployed in 3,500 courtrooms. By 2026, such tools could reach half of India’s court system.
Experts say clustering cases of similar nature through AI could allow judges to resolve bundles of disputes at once, shaving months off trial times. “The gridlock is unsustainable,” one legal tech entrepreneur noted. “AI can restore breathing room in a suffocating system.”
Promise and Peril
Yet optimism is tempered by caution. Concerns over AI hallucinations, privacy breaches, and over-reliance on automation loom large. In 2023, a Manhattan federal judge fined a lawyer $5,000 for citing fictitious case law generated by ChatGPT. In India, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and CJI Gavai have both warned against using AI for judicial decision-making.
Firms like Jhana AI are trying to build guardrails, creating a corpus of 15 million Indian legal documents to ensure citations are authentic. But challenges remain, particularly in lower courts and tribunals, where infrastructure is weak, electricity and internet access are patchy, and files remain bulky paper records.
The Promise of AI in India’s Judicial System
India’s justice delivery system is straining under crushing weight. From the Supreme Court to district courts, backlogs stretch into decades, denying timely justice to millions. Against this backdrop, AI is being seen as both a lifeline and a gamble.
Advantages:
Speeding up Case Disposal:
AI can assist judges by summarizing arguments, extracting precedents, and drafting routine orders. This could dramatically reduce delays in simple cases like cheque bounce, traffic violations, or small civil disputes.Efficient Case Management:
Court registries could use AI to automatically assign cases, detect duplicate filings, and prioritize urgent matters. Predictive analytics could also estimate timelines for hearings.Transparency and Consistency:
By relying on data-driven insights, AI may reduce subjective inconsistencies. For example, bail and sentencing recommendations could be based on structured risk assessments rather than arbitrary judgments.Access to Justice for the Poor:
AI-powered legal assistants and chatbots could help citizens draft petitions, file applications, and understand procedures without costly lawyers, reducing inequality in access to courts.Language and Translation:
With India’s courts operating in multiple languages, AI translation tools could bridge linguistic gaps, allowing seamless vernacular-to-English legal translations.
Risks and Ethical Concerns
But for every promise, there is a peril. Judges, lawyers, and civil society have voiced serious concerns about over-reliance on algorithms.
Bias and Discrimination:
AI learns from past data — which itself may contain caste, class, and gender biases. If unchecked, AI could reinforce systemic injustices rather than correct them.Loss of Human Touch:
Justice often requires empathy and discretion. An AI system may fail to account for emotional, social, or moral nuances, reducing justice to a technical outcome.Transparency & Accountability:
If an AI tool recommends bail denial or sentencing, who is accountable for errors? Courts risk becoming opaque if decisions are influenced by “black box” algorithms.Privacy & Data Security:
Judicial records, testimonies, and evidence will become datasets. Without strong safeguards, these could be vulnerable to cyberattacks or misuse by private actors.Digital Divide:
Many rural courts lack basic infrastructure. Introducing AI risks deepening inequalities, where only well-resourced courts and litigants benefit.
FCRF Academy Invites Legal Experts to Shape India’s First Comprehensive Cyber Law Certification
Lessons From Abroad
Globally, experiments with AI in courts offer both inspiration and caution.
China: Uses AI “smart courts” for e-filing, case allocation, and even AI judges for small claims. While efficient, critics warn of authoritarian misuse.
Estonia: Has piloted an AI judge for small contract disputes, aiming for faster resolution.
United States: Risk-assessment algorithms in bail decisions have drawn backlash for racial biases.
European Union: The AI Act sets strict guidelines for high-risk AI applications, including judiciary.
The Way Forward: Human + AI, Not Human vs AI
Experts suggest AI should remain an assistant, not a replacement.
Explainable AI: Algorithms used in courts must provide clear reasoning for their recommendations.
Human Oversight: Judges should retain final authority. AI outputs should be advisory, not binding.
Regulatory Safeguards: India must develop an AI Ethics Code for Judiciary, aligned with constitutional values of justice, equality, and liberty.
Capacity Building: Judges, lawyers, and clerks need training in AI literacy to use tools responsibly.
As former Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana once noted, “Technology can aid justice, but justice cannot be automated.”
“Introducing AI into our courtrooms may look progressive, but justice cannot be reduced to algorithms. Courts deal with human lives, emotions, and complex social realities that no machine can fully understand. If we start relying on AI for decisions, we risk losing the very essence of fairness” — says advocate Ayush Pratap Singh, Allahabad High Court.
Conclusion
India’s embrace of AI in courts could mark the most significant judicial reform since independence. If executed wisely, it could reduce backlogs, empower citizens, and enhance consistency. But if adopted recklessly, it risks deepening inequality, eroding trust, and undermining the very spirit of justice.
In the end, the question is not whether AI will enter the courtroom. The real question is: Will it serve justice, or efficiency at the cost of justice?