Context

The incorporation of Artificial Intelligence into judicial functioning marks a profound transformation in the delivery of justice. This shift is especially significant for India, where the judicial system faces an overwhelming backlog of over five crore cases. In July 2025, the Kerala High Court became the first in the country to introduce a formal policy to regulate AI use in the district judiciary. This step is both timely and forward-thinking, considering AI’s potential to improve efficiency, speed, and accuracy in the courts. Yet, alongside this promise lies a complex web of risks, ethical dilemmas, and institutional challenges that must be addressed with equal seriousness.

The Potential of AI in Judicial Workflows

·       AI tools offer considerable benefits in automating repetitive tasks and easing the burden on an overstretched judiciary. Functions such as translating court documents, transcribing oral arguments, identifying defects in case filings, and conducting legal research can be executed far more rapidly through AI, thus expediting court processes. Pilot projects have already been launched in some Indian courts, using AI to transcribe witness depositions and arguments, which not only standardises court records but also helps reduce procedural delays.

·       AI also offers the promise of greater accessibility. By enabling accurate translation of legal documents into regional languages, it allows a broader segment of the population—lawyers and litigants alike—to meaningfully engage with the judicial process. Moreover, AI-driven analytics could assist in mapping trends within cases, thereby informing judicial reforms and enhancing case management systems.

The Risks and Pitfalls of AI Integration

·       Despite its efficiencies, AI introduces serious risks that cannot be overlooked. Instances of mistranslation—such as rendering "leave granted" as "holiday approved"—or transcription errors like interpreting "Noel" as "no" expose the flaws in over-reliance on imperfect AI systems. Large Language Models (LLMs), though capable of generating human-like text, are prone to hallucinations and may fabricate case laws or misstate facts—an unacceptable risk in legal environments that demand precision.

·       Beyond technical errors, the absence of a robust regulatory framework is equally concerning. AI, if used mechanically, risks stripping adjudication of its essential human qualities—contextual interpretation, empathy, and moral reasoning. Furthermore, without well-defined protocols on data storage, access, and security, the handling of sensitive personal data by AI systems opens the door to potential privacy breaches.

·       The situation is further complicated by the increasing reliance on pilot projects driven by private vendors, often introduced without long-term infrastructural support. Many of these AI tools are tested in environments lacking stable internet connectivity or secure digital infrastructure. This creates a situation where short-term technological fixes risk becoming long-term liabilities.

·       Additionally, the current AI procurement practices in courts demonstrate little regard for ethical oversight or error mitigation. Even when human review mechanisms are in place—such as retired judges vetting AI-generated translations—the issue persists because AI tools continuously evolve. This means they may introduce new, unforeseen errors over time, making static oversight measures insufficient.

Essential Safeguards for Responsible AI Adoption

·       For AI to serve the judiciary without undermining its core principles, several safeguards are essential. First, there must be widespread AI literacy among all stakeholders—judges, lawyers, and court staff. Training must go beyond operational know-how and include an understanding of the limitations and risks associated with AI. Judicial academies and bar councils, in collaboration with experts in AI governance, should take the lead in conducting structured capacity-building programmes that prepare legal professionals to engage critically with AI-generated outputs.

·       Second, the use of generative AI tools in legal research or judgment writing must be governed by clear and transparent guidelines. Litigants have a right to be informed if AI was used in any part of their case—whether for transcription, legal analysis, or drafting. Courts should also consider allowing individuals the right to opt out of AI-assisted proceedings, reinforcing consent and preventing undue dependence on automated systems.

·       Third, AI procurement processes must be standardised and legally accountable. Before any AI tool is adopted, pre-procurement assessments must determine whether an AI-based solution is even appropriate. These processes should include stringent criteria for explainability, data privacy, accountability, and system transparency. Courts must also be equipped to monitor the performance of AI vendors and ensure ongoing compliance with ethical and technical standards—areas that often lie outside judicial expertise and therefore require external oversight mechanisms.

A Thoughtful Path Forward

As Indian courts cautiously embrace AI, it is vital to remember that judicial reform must always be rooted in the principles of fairness, accountability, and due process. The promise of efficiency must not come at the cost of transparency or justice. The challenge lies not in rejecting AI outright but in ensuring its thoughtful, ethical, and context-sensitive adoption.

If implemented with the appropriate legal frameworks, technical infrastructure, stakeholder training, and institutional safeguards, AI can become a powerful tool to support—rather than substitute—human judgment in the justice system.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s initiative to establish a policy framework on AI use in the judiciary marks a significant step toward responsible innovation. It recognises both the immense potential of AI to transform judicial processes and the urgent need to install safeguards before deployment. As more courts experiment with technological solutions, the focus must remain on ensuring that such innovations complement human discretion rather than replace it. Technology must serve justice—not redefine it—and its integration into the courtroom must be guided by prudence, evidence, and ethical clarity.