CJI Surya Kant On AI In Courts: Technology Can Aid, Not Adjudicate

Speaking at a one-day seminar on “Artificial Intelligence – Prevention and Resolution of Disputes” at the Karnataka Judicial Academy, the CJI emphasised that AI should serve as a facilitative tool rather than a decision-maker within the justice delivery system.

“AI should assist in handling large volumes of data and records, identifying patterns, and reducing procedural delays. However, it must not encroach upon the core judicial function of delivering judgments,” he said.

The event, organised in collaboration with the UIA India Chapter, the Bar Association of India and the National Law School of India University, brought together members of the judiciary, Bar, and academia to deliberate on the growing interface between law and technology.

Cautioning against over-reliance on automated systems, the CJI warned that allowing AI tools to dominate judicial decision-making could undermine transparency and accountability: two foundational pillars of the legal system.

“The final stage of the judicial process, pronouncement of judgments, must remain firmly in human hands,” he asserted, stressing that judges must ultimately rely on their reasoning, experience, and analytical faculties.

Highlighting the appropriate role of technology, he described AI as an “enabler” that should support, but not supplant, human intellect. “AI should function only as a tool or pathway, while the direction must always be determined by human intellect,” he added.

Recently, in a move that could significantly reshape the administrative functioning of the Supreme Court, software powered by Artificial Intelligence is set to take over the process of case listing and bench allocation, a task traditionally handled by the Chief Justice of India as the “master of the roster”. According to reports, the decision has been taken by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant with the aim of reducing human intervention in the allocation of cases and addressing long-standing concerns about administrative transparency within the apex court. At present, the CJI exercises exclusive authority over the constitution of benches and the assignment of cases. This power, known as the master of the roster, has often placed the office of the CJI under intense scrutiny.

A CJI Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court had recently raised concerns over growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in drafting of petitions, relying on recent instances where lawyers cited judgments and quotations that either were found to be non-existent. “We have been alarmingly told that some lawyers have started using AI for drafting,” CJI Kant noted during a hearing today.

Justice Nagarathna, also on the bench, recalled an instance where a fictitious judgment was cited and said, "There was a case of Mercy vs Mankind which does not exist". The judge further observed how actual supreme court judgment were cited but the quoted portions did not exist in the judgment.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by one Kartikeya Rawal seeking regulation of artificial intelligence in the judiciary. The petition had raised concerns over potential misuse of AI in generating fake cases and called for structured guidelines for judicial AI adoption.

During the hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had observed that the judiciary already uses AI cautiously, highlighting ongoing training programmes at judicial academies and the lessons learned from Kerala High Court’s structured AI practices. He noted that the matter provided a learning opportunity for both the bar and the bench.

Earlier, former CJI Gavai led bench, had observed that it had seen morphed pictures of it on the internet. The plea sought regulated & uniform use of GenAI in the Judicial and quasi judicial bodies of India, in order to, ensure fairness, transparency, data-security, and protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19, and 21of the Constitution of India.