Even as courts turn to technology to ease backlogs and improve decisions, High Court judges on Sunday said that Artificial Intelligence could significantly aid justice delivery, but human judgment could remain central.
“You need not be a tech expert to be a hero”: Justice Anoop Chitkara
Declaring that efficiency in delivering justice—not technological mastery—defines a judge’s role, Justice Anoop Chitkara on Sunday made a comprehensive case for integrating Artificial Intelligence and blockchain into the judicial system, while firmly asserting that human judgment must remain supreme. He was addressing a session at Sandhawalia said at the North Zone-I Regional Conference on “Advancing Rule of Law through Technology: Challenges & Opportunities” in Chandigarh.
“You need not become a computer expert to be a hero. Doing justice efficiently is what is going to make us a hero… The idea is to do substantial justice… whether we use AI or we don’t use AI is secondary,” said the Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge.
The conference was organised by the National Judicial Academy in collaboration with the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Chandigarh Judicial Academy. Its Board of Governor’s president Justice Suvir Sehgal, along with members Justice Alka Sarin, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj were present during the event.
Justice Chitkara said that AI had the potential to fundamentally transform court functioning by improving both speed and quality of decisions. AI systems could accelerate legal research by instantly identifying relevant precedents, filter out overturned or irrelevant judgments to ensure doctrinal accuracy, analyse case records, statutes and current judgments simultaneously, tag similar matters in real time to aid consistency in rulings, and enable predictive analytics to help litigants assess the viability of cases and encourage settlement.
“It will result in speedy justice… clarity, transparency, efficiency, consistency and proportionate sentencing,” he observed, adding that compensation determination in motor accident claims and similar matters could also become more accurate.
Justice Chitkara asserted that AI could eliminate duplicate records and repeated complaints at inception, identify litigants, lawyers and witnesses automatically, ensure immediate updating of addresses and contact details, and standardise procedural steps such as service of summons and scheduling. Such interventions would reduce systemic inefficiencies and unclog dockets.
On access to justice, Justice Chitkara referred to AI’s capacity to break linguistic and physical barriers. He mentioned real-time transcription and simultaneous translation in multiple languages, along with speech-to-text and text-to-speech systems, as tools that could make proceedings accessible to all. He added that such technologies could significantly aid illiterate and visually impaired litigants and accused persons. “Simultaneous translation… accessibility for all… this is the strength of AI,” he said.
Justice Chitkara pointed to a major shift in how evidence could be recorded and assessed. Statements recorded at the police station stage itself could be digitised and preserved in original form, reducing later contradictions. AI tools could then compare multiple versions of statements, identify inconsistencies for focused cross-examination, and improve the accuracy of testimony recording. Referring to research, he noted that human ability to detect deception is barely above chance, making AI-assisted analysis a valuable aid.
Moving to blockchain technology, Justice Chitkara described it as a critical safeguard for judicial data. Blockchain offered decentralisation preventing unilateral tampering, transparency and traceability of records, and tamper-proof storage of evidence and judgments. “Nobody can say the judgment did not exist… it is hash-secured and verifiable,” he asserted, suggesting block chain-based record management for courts.
Justice Chitkara also highlighted AI’s role in strengthening cybersecurity within judicial systems through zero-trust security architecture, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and real-time monitoring mechanisms to prevent misinformation and harmful content dissemination.
Despite the optimism, Justice Chitkara flagged serious concerns requiring safeguards, including data privacy risks, algorithmic bias, lack of transparency and explainability, and accountability deficits.
“Never trust, always verify,” he remarked, calling for human oversight and constitutional compliance at every stage.
The address departed from conventional lecture formats and was interactive, laced with quizzes, live demonstrations, and illustrative fables to simplify complex technological concepts. Justice Chitkara moved among the audience, engaging participants directly while switching slides, at times posing questions on artificial intelligence, blockchain and emerging technologies to test responses in real time. He also drew upon parables—including a fable on achieving equitable outcomes through innovative thinking—to emphasize that the essence of adjudication lies in delivering justice rather than adhering rigidly to form, reinforcing his central theme that technology must ultimately serve the cause of justice.
Justice Mishra sounds note of caution
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sounded a strong note of caution against the premature integration of Artificial Intelligence into judicial decision-making, warning of systemic risks if adopted without a robust legislative and institutional framework.
He asserted its direct incorporation into adjudication posed serious concerns—particularly given the tendency of the subordinate judiciary to follow precedential signals from higher courts. “We have to have a very strong note of caution… When we endorse a particular viewpoint, the lower judiciary also starts following it. Then this becomes a very serious problem.”
Justice Mishra stressed that the legal ecosystem was not yet ready for its deployment in core judicial functions. “The minute we start taking it in the judicial dispensation itself, we are in for a very, very serious situation—a crisis of sorts.”
He added that technological tools must first be properly developed, structured, and legislatively backed before courts rely on them in decision-making. “Let it be developed… put in a particular fashion that it can be utilised. At this stage, we cannot close our eyes—but we must proceed with caution.”
AI must not influence adjudication: Manipur High Court Chief Justice M. Sundar
Laying down a clear cautionary framework, the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court asserted that artificial intelligence might assist courts, but must not be allowed to influence adjudication beyond a strictly limited role.
Chief Justice M Sundar articulated six “caveats” governing the use of AI in courts, while warning that premature reliance without legal safeguards could undermine due process, distort jurisprudence, and widen inequalities.
At the outset, he referred to the absence of any statutory framework regulating AI deployment in adjudication, while observing that introducing technology without legislation would amount to “putting the cart before the horse”. He pointed to the need for a dedicated law before courts even consider structured reliance.
Reinforcing the limits of AI, the Chief Justice reiterated that such tools could only aid “preliminary understanding or research”, and not form the basis of judicial conclusions. Referring to prior instances of AI-generated responses being inconsistent or even inaccurate, he cautioned against their evidentiary or adjudicatory use.
Drawing a clear line, the Chief Justice advocated for a “cyborg” model—where human judges are assisted by technology—rather than “robo judges” replacing human discretion. He noted that even jurisdictions experimenting with automated systems retained human oversight through appellate mechanisms.
Flagging a deeper constitutional concern, Justice Sundar questioned the impact of AI on the evolution of law: “Who will write the dissent?” He emphasised that dissenting opinions—often minority views at the time—have historically shaped binding legal principles, and algorithmic uniformity could stifle this organic development.
The Chief Justice also warned of a widening “digital divide” between AI-enabled and non-AI users, potentially affecting access to justice.
