AI can assist courts but cannot replace judges, says CJI Surya Kant

• Artificial intelligence can support judicial research and court processes, but decisions must remain with judges, the CJI said

• India’s digital initiatives are addressing barriers involving distance, cost, language and access to case records

• The digital divide, data security and algorithmic accountability remain challenges requiring safeguards and cooperation

Artificial intelligence can help courts conduct research and manage their work, but judicial judgement and decision-making must remain with judges, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said on Thursday.

Addressing the plenary session of the seventh Congress of the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, the CJI said the adoption of technology must expand access to justice without leaving vulnerable citizens behind or eroding confidence in the judiciary.

He pointed to the Supreme Court AI Committee’s draft regulations on the use of artificial intelligence in courts, released in June 2026, as an effort to establish safeguards around its growing role.

Based on the principle of human primacy, the proposed framework recognises AI as a tool to assist judicial work while reserving legal reasoning and decisions for judges, he said.

During his official visit to Uzbekistan, Justice Kant also addressed a separate event on the theme ‘Digitising Justice: Charting the Supreme Court of India’s Course’. He said technological change in the judiciary must be guided by constitutional commitments to liberty, equality and access to justice.

India’s task, he explained, was to determine how courts could use technology while fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities. Its approach went beyond converting existing procedures into digital formats, seeking instead to redesign them around citizens’ needs.

The CJI referred to Articles 21 and 14, which protect liberty and equality, and Article 32, which allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights. He also highlighted Article 39A’s emphasis on free legal aid to ensure financial hardship does not prevent access to justice.

Electronic filing, virtual hearings, digital case management and live-streaming of Constitution Bench proceedings had helped make courts more accessible by reducing the costs and difficulties associated with physical attendance, he said.

The eCourts Mission Mode Project, which has supported court digitisation across India since 2011, became particularly useful during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between March 2020 and June 2024, the Supreme Court conducted more than 750,000 hearings through video conferencing, according to the CJI.

Justice Kant also outlined initiatives intended to address specific difficulties faced by litigants.

To improve access across languages, the Supreme Court developed SUVAS, an AI-assisted tool for translating judgments into Indian languages. More than 83,000 translations across 18 languages had been published by the previous year, he said.

Another initiative, Su-Sahayak, is an AI-powered chatbot on the Supreme Court’s website. It helps users find case status, cause lists, orders and judgments, alongside guidance on accessing electronic services.

The CJI said easier access to information must be supported by complete and readily available judicial records. He cited the “One Case, One Data” initiative, which aims to connect case information across different levels of the judiciary.

When a case reaches the Supreme Court, the system would make available details of the parties, lower court orders and the judgment being challenged, reducing the need to seek records afresh. Such integration could limit duplication and delays, he said.

Justice Kant acknowledged that India’s experience remained a work in progress. Unequal digital access, data security and accountability for algorithms continued to demand attention as courts increased their reliance on technology.

These concerns were shared across Asia, he said, calling for cooperation among constitutional courts in responding to technological change.

With PTI inputs