“Can Artificial Intelligence Help Judges”

Justice has always been the heartbeat of human civilization. From the earliest gatherings around village fires to the hallowed halls of constitutional courts, humanity has struggled, argued, and prayed for justice in its truest form. The idea of justice is not merely about the enforcement of rights and the imposition of duties; it is about the eternal quest for harmony between individual freedom and collective good. Ancient Indian texts proclaimed that “Satyameva Jayate”—truth alone triumphs. This motto, inscribed on India’s national emblem and taken from the Mundaka Upanishad, demonstrates that the essence of law and justice transcends centuries, retaining its moral gravity even in today’s complex digital age. As we stand at the cusp of an era where artificial intelligence is entering the realm of justice, it becomes vital to reflect on the continuity of this pursuit from the age of Dharma to the age of algorithms.

Ancient Wisdom: Dharma as the First Law (Origination Of Law)

The roots of  law in India are deeply entwined with the philosophy of Dharma. The Rigveda saw Dharma not as rigid legal codes but as an all-encompassing principle that sustained cosmic and social order. The Manusmriti elaborated rules of conduct and responsibility, often blending morality with legal obligations. While modern scholars critique certain hierarchical aspects of Manusmriti, one cannot deny its role as an early attempt to systematize justice.Equally significant is Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which provided a detailed account of governance, economics, espionage, and justice. Kautilya outlined principles of evidence, fairness in trial, and punishments proportionate to the crime—concepts strikingly relevant even today. His insistence that the ruler is bound by Dharma reflects the early notion of constitutionalism, wherein power must always be accountable to law.In ancient India, the Panchayat system stood as a people’s court, resolving disputes with simplicity and speed. Decisions were often rooted in equity, fairness, and reconciliation rather than rigid legalism. Unlike the modern adversarial system, the Panchayat sought to preserve community relationships. This echoes the modern emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), enshrined in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and reaffirmed in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd.

The Modern Constitutional Framework

The modern era of law in India is marked by the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, which transformed traditional notions of justice into concrete guarantees. Articles 14, 19, and 21 embody equality, liberty, and the right to life and dignity. These constitutional promises reflect the universal aspiration for justice, reminding us of the Vedantic vision that every individual is a manifestation of the divine and hence deserves respect. Judicial interpretation has ensured that constitutional provisions remain living principles rather than static texts. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expanded Article 21 to include the right to travel abroad, laying down that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable. Later, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Court recognized the right to privacy as intrinsic to life and liberty. Environmental jurisprudence further extended Article 21, as seen in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, where the principle of absolute liability was evolved.Yet challenges persist. Courts are burdened with enormous backlogs—over 50 million cases are pending in Indian courts as per National Judicial Data Grid (2025). Legal literacy is low, and marginalized communities continue to face barriers in accessing justice. The globalized world adds another layer of complexity, as transnational crimes, digital fraud, and cyber warfare challenge the capacity of traditional laws.

The Challenges of Contemporary Justice

The contemporary legal landscape is a paradox of advancement and crisis. On one hand, constitutional democracies have institutionalized protections for fundamental rights. On the other, pendency of cases threatens to undermine faith in the judiciary. Citizens expect not just fairness but also speed, for justice that comes too late ceases to be justice at all—a principle echoed in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court emphasized the right to speedy trial as part of Article 21.Globalization further complicates justice delivery. Issues of climate change are now adjudicated under international frameworks such as the Paris Agreement, 2015. Cybercrime and data privacy are governed not only by domestic statutes like the Information Technology Act, 2000, but also by global norms like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union. The collision between sovereignty and universality makes the task of judges even more complex.

Artificial Intelligence: The New Instrument of Justice

Into this turbulent world enters artificial intelligence. AI has already transformed industries, and its presence in the legal field is growing rapidly. Tools now assist in legal research, predicting case outcomes, drafting contracts, and even generating judgments in routine matters. The possibility of AI reducing pendency is alluring, particularly in countries like India where delays cripple the system.In Estonia, AI is being experimented with for small claims adjudication. The European Commission has framed Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy , emphasizing transparency and accountability. In India, the Supreme Court’s “SUPACE” (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency), launched in 2021, demonstrates the willingness to integrate AI in legal processes.Yet dangers abound. Algorithms reflect the biases of their creators. If unchecked, AI may perpetuate systemic discrimination. Transparency, accountability, and ethical safeguards are essential to ensure that machines serve justice rather than distort it. Importantly, no machine can replicate the human conscience, empathy, and moral reasoning that judges bring to the courtroom. AI may aid in the process, but the heart of justice must remain human.

Bridging Ancient Dharma/Vidhi(Law) with Modern AI

The question then arises: can AI be reconciled with the ancient wisdom of Dharma? The answer lies in synthesis rather than replacement. Dharma emphasized fairness, truth, and balance. Modern law emphasizes procedure, rights, and equality. AI emphasizes speed, data, and efficiency. Together, these can complement one another.For instance, AI can identify patterns of discrimination in bail decisions, but it is the judge’s conscience, informed by Dharma, that must decide with compassion and fairness, which results into:-

1. Speed and Efficiency – Rapid analysis of statutes, precedents, and evidence reduces the burden on judges.

2. Reduction of Case Backlog – Routine matters can be expedited, allowing judges to focus on complex cases.

3. Consistency in Rulings – AI can help ensure uniformity in similar cases, reinforcing equality before law.

4. Enhanced Legal Research – AI provides comparative perspectives by drawing on global jurisprudence.

5. Support in Data-Heavy Cases – Particularly useful in financial frauds, cybercrimes, and environmental litigation.

6. Access to Justice – AI-driven legal aid tools can guide underprivileged litigants, narrowing barriers to courts. 

Recent Instances when AI helped in a significant manner in judicial proceedings and Court Administration:

• AI-Generated Victim Impact Statement in ArizonaIn a ground breaking and emotionally resonant case from May 2025, Stacey Wales used generative AI to create an avatar of her deceased brother, Christopher Pelkey, to deliver a victim impact statement during his killer’s sentencing hearing in Chandler, Arizona. The AI avatar, clearly disclosed as such, expressed forgiveness and compassion, leaving a profound impact on the judge, who later imposed the maximum sentence (10½ years) for man slaughter .Legal experts praised the sensitive introduction of the AI-generated statement—applied during sentencing rather than trial—to avoid prejudicial effects. Still, the case has sparked important conversations about ethics, authenticity, and the future role of AI in court rooms. 

• U.S. Appellate Judge Conducts AI “Mini-Experiment”In September 2024, U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom conducted a controlled AI experiment using Chat GPT to interpret the phrase “physically restrained” in a federal sentencing appeal. Although he ultimately upheld the sentence, Judge Newsom found that AI provided insightful perspectives into everyday language usage and suggested that AI could have a supplementary role in interpreting legal texts—not as final authority but as an aid in human reasoning.

•  AI Transcription and Summarization Advances in the U.K.In the United Kingdom, AI tools are increasingly used to speed up courtroom procedures: AI-powered transcription services now help produce sentencing remarks and transcripts for rape and serious sexual assault cases—improving both transparency and responsiveness for victims. The UK government has recently expanded this pilot program into civil and family courts, with future plans to use AI for summarizing case materials and translating them into more digestible language for the public  

While Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers promising avenues for efficiency, it also presents significant challenges that must be carefully considered before widespread adoption in the judicial process:-

1. Bias and DiscriminationAI systems are only as fair as the data they are trained on. If past judgments reflect systemic bias, the algorithm may replicate or even amplify such prejudice, leading to unequal treatment of marginalized groups.

2. Opacity and Lack of TransparencyMany AI tools operate as “black boxes,” providing outputs without clear explanations of how decisions were reached. This undermines the principle of judicial accountability, as parties have a right to understand the reasoning behind a judgment.

3. Risk of Over-RelianceThere is a danger that judges may lean too heavily on algorithmic recommendations. While AI can analyse patterns, it cannot replace human conscience, empathy, and moral reasoning—qualities essential to justice.

4. Privacy and Data Protection ConcernsAI systems often require access to sensitive personal data. Without robust safeguards, this could violate the constitutional right to privacy, recognized by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

5. Erosion of Judicial AuthorityExcessive reliance on AI may dilute the authority and legitimacy of human judges. Public trust in the judiciary stems from its human character—its ability to reason, empathize, and interpret values beyond rigid codes.

6. Technological DivideNot all courts have equal access to advanced digital infrastructure. While metropolitan courts may benefit from AI, rural and under-resourced courts risk being left behind, widening the gap in the delivery of justice

Conclusion: Justice as a Timeless Journey

The story of justice is a timeless journey, stretching from the Vedic fires to constitutional courts, from palm-leaf manuscripts to artificial intelligence. Each era brings its tools, but the essence remains constant: justice must protect the weak, restrain the powerful, and uphold truth. Ancient Indian jurists offered moral wisdom, modern constitutional framers enshrined rights, and AI promises efficiency. But all these are instruments; the true source of justice is the human spirit guided by Dharma.As we embrace AI in law, let us remember that machines can quicken the delivery of justice but cannot define its soul. Judges and lawyers must harmonize ancient wisdom with modern innovation, ensuring that the eternal flame of justice continues to burn bright. For in the end, whether through Dharma or Constitution, through Panchayats or algorithms, the message remains unchanged: Satyameva Jayate—truth alone triumphs.

“अथ धर्मस्य तत्वं निहितं गुहायां महाजनॊ येन गतः स पन्थाः॥” “The essence of Dharma is subtle and hidden in the heart; the path is that which the great ones have walked.”

{Just as Dharma cannot be reduced to rigid rules, justice cannot be delegated entirely to machines. AI may calculate probabilities, but the subtle essence of fairness rests in human conscience.}

“AI can assist but must never dominate judicial reasoning. The essence of justice lies not in computation but in conscience.”