Overview
Judiciary and Artificial Intelligence White Paper Insights: The Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning (CRP) has released a White Paper examining how AI should be safely integrated into India’s judicial system. It highlights ethical risks, reviews practical challenges, and surveys global initiatives shaping responsible AI use in courts. The Paper aims to balance innovation with judicial independence, transparency, and constitutional values.
Static GK fact: The Supreme Court of India was established on 28 January 1950 as the apex judicial authority.
Ethical Risks of Judicial AI
The report highlights that overreliance on AI can weaken judicial discretion. Automated tools may produce outcomes without clear reasoning, creating accountability gaps. The opaque nature of many AI models increases the risk of errors going unnoticed.
AI systems can also generate hallucinations, including fabricated case laws or citations. The Paper references US cases such as Roberto Mata v. Avianca and Coomer v. Lindell, where AI-generated false citations came under scrutiny.
Static GK Tip: The doctrine of judicial review in India was strengthened by the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
Algorithmic Bias and Data Concerns
The Paper warns against algorithmic bias, citing the US example of the COMPAS tool, which faced challenge in State v. Loomis over potential racial bias. Such models, if replicated without safeguards, could create unfair outcomes in Indian courts.
Other risks include deepfakes and manipulated evidence, raising evidentiary challenges. Concerns extend to privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property, especially when third-party AI tools process sensitive court data.
Key Recommendations
The Paper suggests establishing AI Ethics Committees within courts. These bodies should include judges, technologists, and legal academics to review AI tools and monitor compliance with ethical norms.
It encourages courts to develop secure in-house AI systems rather than relying on external platforms to reduce data-security and exposure risks.
A formal Ethical AI Policy should clearly define authorised use cases, allocation of responsibility, and mechanisms for human oversight.
Additional recommendations include strict disclosure norms, mandatory audit trails, and comprehensive capacity-building training for judicial officers.
India’s AI Initiatives in the Judiciary
Key digital justice initiatives include the e-Courts Mission Mode Project, which uses AI to reduce backlog, address linguistic barriers, and streamline processes.
Tools such as SUPACE assist judges in analysing case records and generating summaries, improving efficiency.
The SUVAS translation tool has converted more than 36,000 Supreme Court judgments into 19 Indian languages, supporting accessibility. Other tools include TERES (AI-based transcription) and LegRAA (legal research analysis).
Static GK fact: India has 25 High Courts, each with jurisdiction over one or more states or union territories.
Global Developments
Globally, organisations such as UNESCO have issued the “Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence,” while the OECD formulated its Principles on Artificial Intelligence (2019), the world’s first intergovernmental AI standard.
The EU AI Act regulates high-risk judicial AI applications. Countries such as Brazil (ATHOS) and Singapore (LawNet AI) have developed specialised judicial AI tools, offering comparative models for India.
Static Usthadian Current Affairs Table
Judiciary and Artificial Intelligence White Paper Insights:
| Topic | Detail |
| White Paper focus | Safe and ethical use of AI in the judiciary |
| Key institution | Supreme Court Centre for Research and Planning |
| Major risks | Overreliance, hallucinations, bias, privacy issues |
| Notable US cases | Roberto Mata v. Avianca; Coomer v. Lindell |
| Bias example | COMPAS tool challenged in State v. Loomis |
| Core recommendation | AI Ethics Committees in courts |
| India initiatives | e-Courts, SUPACE, SUVAS, TERES, LegRAA |
| UNESCO role | Global AI ethics recommendation |
| OECD role | 2019 AI Principles |
| EU initiative | EU AI Act regulating high-risk systems |
