Bytes Before Bias: Embracing AI in Justice

The Indian judiciary, burdened with over 50 million pending cases, is at a crossroads where tradition must yield to innovation. While Chief Justice of India B R Gavai cautions against letting technology take the "driver’s seat," the reality demands a co-pilot, Artificial Intelligence, to steer the system out of its crippling backlog. The argument isn’t about replacing judges but augmenting their capabilities. AI, trained on millions of precedents and global jurisprudence, can deliver swift, data-driven verdicts in routine cases, freeing human judges to focus on complex, nuanced matters.

Former CJI D Y Chandrachud’s assertion that "technology should be a means of ensuring justice to everyone" rings truer today than ever. AI is already revolutionising critical fields like healthcare, where algorithms diagnose diseases and even assist in surgeries with precision. If machines can save lives in operating rooms, why not in courtrooms? The justice system’s resistance to AI stems from an outdated bias that equates morality exclusively with human judgment. Yet, isn’t it profoundly immoral to let innocents languish in jail for years, awaiting trial, because the system is clogged? Technology, when supervised by humans, can cut through this backlog, ensuring timely justice, a cornerstone of the rule of law.

AI’s potential lies in its ability to analyse vast datasets, statutes, precedents, and cross-border legal principles, in seconds, eliminating inconsistencies and judicial delays. For instance, petty disputes, traffic violations, or routine contract breaches could be resolved algorithmically, with a provision for human review. This isn’t about "blindly following historical trends," as the CJI fears, but about leveraging history to ensure fairness. The Supreme Court’s own stance on arbitral awards, permitting limited modifications without "de novo merits review", shows pragmatism. Why not extend this logic to AI-assisted verdicts?

Beyond efficiency, AI can also reduce judicial bias, ensuring verdicts are based on data rather than subjective interpretation. Studies show that human judges, despite their best intentions, are influenced by external factors like fatigue or personal beliefs. AI, devoid of such biases, can apply the law uniformly. Critics argue that machines lack empathy, but empathy is irrelevant in routine cases where the law is clear-cut. By integrating AI for such matters, we uphold fairness while accelerating justice.

The fear of eroding public trust in a tech-driven judiciary is misplaced. Trust is eroded by delays, not efficiency. A hybrid model, where AI handles the bulk of routine cases while judges tackle complex ones, would restore faith by delivering justice faster. The "human touch" matters, but so does the human cost of inaction. India’s justice system must shed its technophobia and pilot AI under judicial oversight. The alternative, status quo, is a greater betrayal of the rule of law than any algorithm could ever be.