Surya Kant urged judges not to fear AI but use it cautiously, stressing it must aid—not replace—human judgment. He warned against over-reliance, highlighting risks like inaccuracies and misuse while emphasising judicial independence and constitutional values
Published Date – 18 April 2026, 03:16 PM
Bengaluru: Cautioning that the adoption of technology in the judiciary must be accompanied by a clear and conscious understanding of its inherent limitations, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday urged judicial officers not to be “afraid” of AI. Asserting that technology must remain an aid, not a substitute, he said the integration of Artificial Intelligence into the judicial process must be guided by a principle of balance, leveraging its benefits to enhance efficiency while steadfastly preserving the human intellect, experience, and constitutional conscience that lie at the heart of justice.
The chief justice was speaking at the 22nd biennial state-level conference of judicial officers, themed ‘Reimagining the Judiciary in the Era of Artificial Intelligence’, organised by the Karnataka State Judicial Officers Association. “I would also like to add that you should not be afraid of AI. What do you do when a case involving very complicated facts and complex questions of law is placed before you? You apply more thought, spend more time, exercise greater patience, and feel a sense of satisfaction when you decide such a case,” Justice Kant said.
“The same will happen with AI tools when we begin using them carefully and consciously, ensuring that the judge within you remains independent and is not influenced by these technical tools,” he added.
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Supreme Court judges B V Nagarathna and Aravind Kumar, and Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Vibhu Bakhru, among others, were present at the event.
Stating that the emergence of AI presents both significant opportunities and serious challenges for the judiciary, the CJI said that, on one hand, AI has the potential to enhance efficiency in meaningful ways-by assisting in legal research, streamlining case management, organising large volumes of data, and reducing administrative burdens that often consume valuable judicial time.
“With structured and targeted training, judicial officers can effectively harness these tools to improve productivity and ensure that greater time and attention are devoted to the core function of adjudication,” he said. However, he added, the adoption of such technology must be accompanied by a clear and conscious understanding of its inherent limitations.
“AI operates on patterns, algorithms, and existing datasets; it does not possess judgment in the human sense, nor can it engage with the ethical, social, and moral dimensions that frequently underpin judicial decision-making,” Justice Kant said. “The process of judging is not merely analytical-it is also reflective, contextual, and guided by constitutional values. An over-reliance on AI tools risks reducing this nuanced exercise to a mechanical output, thereby diluting the depth, independence, and integrity of judicial reasoning,” he said.
Expressing concern about inaccuracies generated by such systems, he said there have been recent instances of fabricated precedents, incorrect citations, and entirely fictitious legal propositions being produced by AI platforms. “These so-called ‘hallucinations’ are not minor technical lapses; they strike at the very foundation of the judicial process, which rests on accuracy, authenticity, and trust. If left unchecked, they have the potential to mislead, distort legal arguments, compromise the quality of adjudication, and misdirect outcomes,” he said.
Justice Kant further warned of the growing risk of AI tools being misused to generate misleading pleadings, frivolous claims, or superficially convincing yet substantively flawed submissions.
“Such practices not only burden the judicial system but also divert attention from genuine disputes that require urgent resolution. In an already strained system, this adds a layer of complexity that must be addressed seriously,” he said.
Highlighting the role of judicial officers in this evolving landscape, the CJI said, “Technology must be approached with discernment, not deference.” Any material generated through AI must be subjected to scrutiny and independent verification, he said, adding, “The responsibility to ensure accuracy, authenticity, and fairness cannot be delegated to a machine. It remains an essential and non-negotiable component of judicial duty.” He emphasised that while navigating this evolving landscape, it is necessary to reaffirm a foundational principle-that justice is, and must remain, a human endeavour.
“It is shaped by reasoning, guided by values, and enriched by experience, and no technological advancement can replicate the intuitive understanding and moral judgment at the core of judicial decision-making,” he said.
The CJI said the future of the judiciary will be shaped by its ability to adapt without losing its core identity. This requires continuous learning, reflection, and a commitment to excellence, he added.
“We stand at a moment of transition, where the choices we make will define the trajectory of the judiciary for years to come. While our tools and methods may evolve, our fundamental responsibility remains unchanged-to deliver justice that is fair, accessible, and humane,” he said.
Highlighting that there are moments in the life of an institution when introspection becomes indispensable, the CJI said the time to pause and introspect has arrived for the Indian judiciary.
A time comes when it must pause-not out of hesitation, but out of responsibility,” he added.
Comments are closed.