By Inderjit Badhwar
There are moments when a seemingly routine administrative decision reveals something much larger about the age we live in. The Bar Council of India’s recent directive requiring aspiring advocates to sign an affidavit governing the ethical use of artificial intelligence, digital platforms and courtroom material is one such moment.
Read casually, it appears to be a professional regulation aimed at lawyers entering the profession. Read more carefully, it is something far more significant. It is an acknowledgment that the administration of justice has entered an entirely new era—one in which the courtroom is no longer defined by its walls.
For centuries, courts spoke primarily through judgments. Proceedings unfolded before those physically present, and the wider public encountered the law through carefully reported judgments or newspaper accounts. The pace was deliberate, the process measured and the authority of the institution rested not merely on its decisions, but on the solemnity with which those decisions were reached. Technology has rewritten that script.
Today, judicial proceedings are livestreamed. Courtroom exchanges become viral clips within minutes. A judge’s observation, divorced from its legal context, can dominate news cycles before the hearing has even concluded. Artificial intelligence can summarise complex judgments in seconds—or fabricate authorities that never existed. Deepfakes can blur the distinction between truth and manipulation with alarming sophistication. Justice has entered what might be called the attention economy.
This transformation has brought undeniable benefits. The movement towards open courts and live-streaming has made the justice system more accessible than at any other time in our constitutional history. Citizens who might never have entered a courtroom can now witness constitutional debates unfold in real time. Legal awareness has expanded, judicial accountability has deepened and the public has acquired a greater understanding of the institutions that safeguard democracy.
These are achievements worth celebrating.
Yet, transparency has also acquired unintended consequences. Digital platforms thrive on brevity, speed and controversy. Judicial reasoning, by contrast, depends on context, patience and nuance. The two cultures do not always sit comfortably together.
A thirty-second clip can eclipse a three-hour hearing. A provocative headline can overshadow a carefully reasoned judgment. An observation made during oral arguments may assume a permanence and significance that it was never intended to possess. In the digital marketplace of ideas, complexity is often the first casualty. It is within this environment that the Bar Council’s circular must be understood.
The directive is not simply about preventing lawyers from misusing artificial intelligence or protecting confidential client information. At its heart lies an institutional concern that the integrity of judicial proceedings may be compromised in an ecosystem where information travels instantly, context is frequently lost and technological tools are increasingly capable of creating convincing falsehoods.
The challenge extends well beyond the legal profession.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming every field touched by knowledge. For the legal community, however, its implications are particularly profound. The practice of law rests upon trust—trust in documents, trust in evidence, trust in precedent and, ultimately, trust in institutions. Technologies capable of fabricating voices, images, documents and even legal authorities strike at the very foundations upon which that trust has traditionally rested. At the same time, there is an equally compelling danger in overcorrecting.
The constitutional commitment to open justice is not an administrative convenience; it is a democratic principle. Public confidence in courts depends not only upon the fairness of judicial decisions, but upon the visibility of the judicial process itself. Transparency is one of the strongest safeguards against arbitrariness, and any attempt to regulate digital engagement must be careful not to undermine the openness that the judiciary itself has worked to promote.
That is why the questions raised by this issue are larger than the Bar Council’s affidavit. Can institutions preserve their dignity without appearing inaccessible? Can courts remain transparent without becoming vulnerable to distortion? Can professional ethics evolve quickly enough to keep pace with technologies that change by the month rather than the decade? Perhaps most importantly, should responsibility for protecting the integrity of judicial discourse rest solely upon lawyers when social media platforms, anonymous influencers and algorithm-driven networks increasingly shape public understanding of legal issues? These are questions that have no simple answers.
History suggests that every major communication revolution has compelled institutions to rethink themselves. The printing press transformed religion and politics. Radio and television reshaped public leadership. The internet altered commerce, journalism and governance. Artificial intelligence now promises to redefine knowledge itself. The legal system cannot remain untouched.
The cover story this week you are about to read is, therefore, not merely about a regulatory circular. It is about a justice system adapting to profound technological change while attempting to preserve constitutional values that long predate the digital age.
The courtroom has not become less important because it is now watched through smartphone screens rather than courtroom galleries. If anything, it has become more important. Judicial institutions today operate before audiences that are larger, more immediate and more participatory than any generation of judges could have imagined.
That reality demands new ethical standards, new technological literacy and perhaps even new legal doctrines. But it also demands restraint.
In every age, institutions must evolve without surrendering the principles that give them legitimacy. For the judiciary, those principles remain remarkably constant: fairness, independence, transparency and public confidence.
Technology may transform how justice is seen. It must never be allowed to transform what justice means.
