TECHNOLOGY must complement, not replace, the human mind in judicial decision-making, Chief Justice of India B R Gavai has said while emphasising that the value of discretion, empathy and judicial interpretation is irreplaceable. In his keynote address on “Role of Technology in the Indian Legal System” at theSchool of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London,theCJI said while the judiciary welcomes innovations like automated causelists, digital kiosks and virtual assistants, it must ensure that human oversight, ethical guidelines, and robust training are integral to their implementation.

 

“The value of discretion, empathy and judicial interpretation is irreplaceable,” Justice Gavai said and pointed out that theIndianjudiciary is well-positioned to develop homegrown ethical frameworks tailored to the country’s constitutional and societal realities. “We possess thetechnological expertise, the judicial foresight and the democratic mandate to build systems that reflect our values of equality, dignity and justice,” he said. “In fact, in the very first week afterassumingofficeastheChief Justice of India, I initiated a discussion with the Centre for Research and Planning of the SupremeCourttoprepareacomprehensive note on the ethical use of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies in the judiciary. “Technology must complement, not replace, the human mind in judicial decision-making,” the CJI said, adding, “The emphasis must always be on using technology to enhance trust and transparency -- never to replace the human conscience at the heart of justice.” He said though the judiciary has started to embrace technology, with the emergence of artificial-intelligence (AI) tools in judicial processes -- from case management to legal research, document translation and even predictiveanalytics--theremust be caution.

 

“Aroundtheworld,debatesare ongoing aboutthe ethical use of AI in legal systems. Concerns include algorithmic bias, misinformation, data manipulation and breaches of confidentiality. For instance, sensitive information, suchas theidentityofa victim of crime, must never be disclosed due to AI error or the absence of clear protocols. Additionally, a few recent cases have shown that AI tools can generate fabricated citations or biased suggestions if not properly regulated and monitored,” the CJI underscored.