Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath: AI Can't Replace Judges in Writing Judgments
In a significant address at the Supreme Court Bar Association's first national conference in Bengaluru, Justice Vikram Nath, the most senior judge of the Supreme Court, delivered a clear message about the role of artificial intelligence in the judiciary. Speaking on Sunday, he stated that while AI can serve as a facilitator for the justice delivery system, it can never replace the core task of writing judgments, which will always remain with judges.
AI as a Tool, Not a Replacement
Justice Nath, who spoke on the theme 'Challenges, innovations and role of AI in judicial governance', emphasized that AI should be viewed as a tool to augment the judicial system rather than a substitute for human judgment. "AI can be used as a tool to augment the judicial system, but it cannot replace the judgment or judges' minds as to what is to be decided," he asserted. He highlighted the inherent limitations of AI in dealing with the vast and varied nature of legal cases.
He explained that there is no fixed data set for the millions of cases handled by courts, making AI unsuitable for tasks requiring nuanced understanding. For instance, in matrimonial cases, commercial settlements, or balancing equities, judges must read papers and hear counsel to grasp facts that differ from case to case. "Judges alone know how to strike a balance in family partition suits," Justice Nath noted, underscoring the human element essential in legal decision-making.
Limitations in Complex Legal Scenarios
Justice Nath further elaborated on areas where AI falls short. He pointed out that AI cannot decide cases involving constitutional issues or handle the innumerable complexities in criminal cases. "How to appreciate the evidence, when to grant bail; in the same FIR there can be 10 accused, court may grant bail to nine but deny one. AI can't deal with all these," he said. Instead, he suggested that AI can assist in collating data, categorizing cases, and translations, but the final judgment must rest with judges.
He also commended SCBA president Vikas Singh for organizing the conference, acknowledging the importance of discussing such technological advancements in the legal field.
Support from Other Judicial Figures
Other judges echoed similar sentiments. Justice A G Masih of the Supreme Court reinforced that AI is not here to replace lawyers and judges. "Data-driven intelligence cannot replace human conscience," he stated. He emphasized that courts rely on public faith to deliver justice by balancing rights and liabilities with a human heart, something AI cannot replicate. "Feelings cannot be replicated by AI, which can facilitate judicial activities but cannot substitute them," Justice Masih added.
He also suggested the need to institutionalize guidelines for court technology and possibly create a judicial-tech oversight board to maintain and check AI tools for bias and review automated drafts.
Concerns About AI Hallucinations and Evidence Integrity
Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya raised concerns about AI hallucinations, noting that since mankind created AI, the flaws inherent in humans are also present in AI. "Hallucination was implicit in mankind and mankind made AI. Therefore, hallucination was also implicit in AI," he said, warning that this makes AI dangerous for the judiciary as it might present non-existent or imaginary case law and logic.
Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyay discussed the global use of AI-assisted judgment drafting software in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, the UK, the UAE, and China. He highlighted that while AI is increasingly integrated into judicial governance for administrative efficiency and support functions, it raises important questions about accountability, fairness, and the limits of automation.
Justice Upadhyay also addressed the risks posed by AI-manipulated images and deepfakes, which can undermine evidence integrity and impact justice administration. "Courts may have to re-examine the traditional reliance on photographs and videos... Burden on parties to establish authenticity will increase and the judiciary would have to rely more on forensic tests of such evidence," he cautioned.
Key Takeaways from the Conference
- AI can assist in judicial tasks like data collation and translation but cannot replace judges in writing judgments.
- Human judgment is crucial for handling complex cases, such as those involving constitutional issues or criminal evidence.
- There is a need for guidelines and oversight boards to manage AI tools in courts and prevent bias.
- AI hallucinations and deepfakes pose significant risks to evidence integrity, requiring increased forensic scrutiny.
Overall, the conference underscored that while AI offers valuable support to the judiciary, the human element remains irreplaceable in ensuring justice is delivered with conscience and nuance.
