By Inderjit Badhwar
When history looks back at this moment, it may well describe it as the inflection point when India’s justice system stood face-to-face with the most disruptive technological force of our time: Artificial Intelligence.
New Delhi’s hosting of the AI Summit is more than symbolic. It underscores India’s ambition to be at the forefront of technological innovation. Yet, even as AI reshapes commerce, education, healthcare and governance, the judiciary—our constitutional sentinel—has chosen a path of calibrated caution. The cover story this week explores why.
Across the world, AI is being hailed as the antidote to bureaucratic delay and institutional inertia. In India, where over five crore cases remain pending across courts, the appeal of algorithmic assistance is undeniable. AI promises speed. It promises precision. It promises relief from paperwork mountains that threaten to overwhelm human capacity. And yet, justice is not merely a process. It is a moral act.
Courts do not simply process information; they interpret human conflict. They weigh context, nuance, vulnerability and intent. They must sometimes temper law with compassion, or read constitutional morality into evolving social realities. These are not computational functions. They are deeply human responsibilities.
The Supreme Court’s February 2026 guidelines reflect this philosophical clarity. Artificial Intelligence may assist in listing, translation, transcription and research. It may help map pendency trends or detect procedural defects. But it cannot—and must not—replace judicial reasoning. This distinction is not semantic. It is existential.
Recent episodes involving AI-generated fake citations serve as stark reminders. When fabricated judgments appear in pleadings, the integrity of the judicial process itself is threatened. An erroneous commercial brief may cost money. An erroneous judicial order may cost liberty, reputation or even life.
The Court’s response has therefore been deliberate. It recognises both promise and peril. It acknowledges AI’s capacity to ease administrative burdens. But it also warns of hallucinations, embedded biases, data vulnerabilities and over-dependence. These are not abstract concerns. They touch upon constitutional guarantees of equality, due process and fairness.
Equally critical is the training gap. Technology without literacy breeds misuse. The UNESCO survey’s revelation that only a small fraction of judicial officers have received AI training is sobering. Adoption without understanding is not innovation—it is risk. There is another dimension often overlooked. Sovereignty.
Many AI tools operate on foreign servers or rely on opaque algorithms developed elsewhere. Feeding sensitive judicial data into such systems raises questions of confidentiality and national security. The White Paper’s emphasis on in-house, sovereign AI infrastructure is therefore not technological nationalism—it is institutional prudence.
Some may argue that the judiciary’s caution slows reform. Perhaps. But haste in matters of justice can be more dangerous than delay.
The essence of adjudication lies in accountability. A judge signs an order. A machine does not bear constitutional responsibility. Transparency, explainability and human oversight must remain non-negotiable pillars.
At the same time, resistance cannot become rigidity. India’s justice system cannot ignore tools that may enhance efficiency and access, especially for litigants navigating language and procedural barriers. Systems like SUVAS and TERES demonstrate how technology can democratise legal access without diluting judicial authority.
The real question is not whether AI will enter the courtroom. It already has. The question is who remains in control.
This story matters because it captures a turning point. It reflects a judiciary willing to experiment, yet unwilling to surrender its core values. It highlights a legal fraternity learning—sometimes painfully—that convenience cannot trump verification. Most importantly, it reminds us that justice, at its heart, is a human covenant.
Artificial Intelligence may illuminate data. It may accelerate research. It may even suggest patterns invisible to the naked eye. But justice requires conscience.
In this algorithmic age, the Supreme Court’s guarded embrace of AI sends a powerful message: Technology must serve the Constitution—not the other way around.
As readers, citizens and stakeholders in the rule of law, we must engage with this transition thoughtfully. The future of justice will not be decided by machines. It will be shaped by how wisely we choose to use them.
