Judges Sound Alarm on Artificial Intelligence Risks in Courtrooms
During the South Zone Regional Judicial Conference held in Bengaluru on Saturday, senior judges issued strong warnings about the growing dependence on Artificial Intelligence within court proceedings. While acknowledging AI's potential as a research tool, they emphasized that it cannot substitute human judgment and constitutional principles in delivering justice.
The Digital Divide Extends Beyond Technology Access
Justice M Sundar, Chief Justice of Manipur High Court, spoke during a session titled 'Bridging the digital divide: The role of e-services,' where he presented a comprehensive analysis of the judiciary's digital challenges. He identified that the digital divide encompasses more than just economic barriers or computer literacy.
Justice Sundar categorized the digital divide into three primary areas: digital natives versus digital immigrants; the digitally rich versus the digitally poor in terms of device access and connectivity; and individuals with high technological competence versus those with limited skills. He highlighted a fourth, emerging division centered specifically on Artificial Intelligence, creating a new separation between those who view AI as a helpful judicial aid and those concerned it might compromise independent legal thinking.
AI Hallucinations and Fabricated Judgments Raise Concerns
The judges expressed particular concern about AI-generated inaccuracies, referencing multiple instances where technology produced unreliable outcomes. Justice Sundar cautioned that AI outputs should be "considered, not relied upon," pointing to cases involving completely fabricated legal citations—a phenomenon known as "AI hallucinations."
One alarming incident involved lawyers presenting an AI-generated Supreme Court judgment containing fake citations, leading to the document's dismissal and subsequent administrative action against those responsible. Justice Sundar explained that AI lacks genuine cognitive abilities, functioning instead through pattern recognition based on data and algorithms.
"You can consider AI, but you cannot depend on it entirely to make a judgment," Justice Sundar stated. "AI tunes itself as per the prompt you give; it doesn't have emotions like us to analyse the situation completely in legal cases."
Cyborg Judges: The Future of Judicial Decision-Making
Rather than completely rejecting technology, the conference participants envisioned a balanced approach where AI complements human judgment. Justice Sundar introduced the concept of "cyborg judges"—legal professionals who integrate AI's computational power with independent human reasoning.
The judiciary emphasized that while AI can assist in legal processes, it must never replace the essential human elements of judicial decision-making. To address the digital divide practically, the conference recommended expanding e-service centers in remote areas, ensuring technology directly benefits litigants and improves access to justice.
"We are not looking at robot judges but cyborg judges—part human, part machine—using AI's computational strength while applying independent human reasoning," Justice Sundar concluded, outlining a future where technology supports rather than supplants judicial wisdom.
