AI can never do the main job of writing judgments: Supreme Court judge india news
New Delhi: Justice Vikram Nath, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, on Sunday said artificial intelligence can be a facilitator for the justice delivery system, but it can never replace the core function – writing judgments – which will always remain with the judges.Speaking on ‘Challenges, Innovation and Role of AI in Judicial Administration’ at the first national conference of the Supreme Court Bar Association in Bengaluru, Justice Nath said, “AI can be used as a tool to enhance the judicial system, but it cannot replace the judgment or the mind of judges in deciding what is to be decided.” Justice Nath said, “There cannot be any fixed data set in the millions of cases dealt with by the courts. For example, matrimonial cases, disposal of commercial cases, equity balancing – the court can understand the nuances of each case by reading the papers and listening to the lawyer, which is factually different from the other. Only judges know how to strike a balance in family partition suits.”He said, “AI cannot decide cases involving constitutional issues. There are innumerable complexities in criminal cases – how to appreciate the evidence, when to grant bail; there can be 10 accused in a single FIR, the court can grant bail to nine but reject one. AI cannot deal with all of these. AI is there to help us in many aspects – collecting data, classifying cases, translation etc. But the decision will remain only with the judges.“Justice Nath also appreciated the initiative taken by SCBA President Vikas Singh in the conference.Supreme Court judge AG Masih said, “AI is not here to replace lawyers and judges. Data-driven intelligence cannot replace human conscience. The function of courts depends on public trust to deliver justice by carefully balancing rights and liabilities and assessing the factual circumstances with a human heart.” Emotions cannot be replicated by AI, which can facilitate judicial activities but not replace them.“The judge said there appears to be a need to institutionalize guidelines for court technology and, perhaps, create a judicial-tech oversight board to maintain and check AI tools for bias and review an automated draft. Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya said that hallucination is inherent in mankind and mankind has created AI. Therefore, AI also contained hallucinations and this was what made it dangerous for the judiciary as it presented case law and logic that was non-existent or imaginary, he said.Delhi HC Chief Justice DK Upadhyay raised the issue of the use of AI-assisted judgment drafting software in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, UK, UAE and China. “Collectively, AI is becoming increasingly integrated into multiple domains of judicial administration, from administrative efficiency to substantive support functions, while also raising important questions about accountability, fairness, and the limits of automation in the judicial system,” he said.Justice Upadhyay said, “AI-manipulated images, deepfakes undermine the integrity of maliciously deployed evidence and adversely impact the administration of justice. Courts may have to re-examine the traditional reliance on photographs and videos… The burden on parties to establish authenticity will increase and the judiciary will have to rely more on forensic tests of such evidence.”
