Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that artificial intelligence should serve as an assistant and not as a judge [1].
The distinction is critical as judicial systems globally weigh the integration of automation. If AI replaces human judgment, the legal system risks losing the nuance and equity required for fair trials.
Chief Justice Kant said that the role of technology in the courtroom must remain supportive. He said, "AI should assist and not decide equities" [1]. By positioning AI as a tool for efficiency rather than a decision-maker, the judiciary aims to maintain human oversight over legal outcomes.
The Chief Justice also addressed the broader implementation of digital dispute resolution. He said that the impact of these technologies is not inherently positive or negative—it depends on the framework of their application.
"Whether digital dispute resolution and AI enhance or disrupt access to justice depends on how thoughtfully and deliberately their use is designed," Kant said [1].
This caution suggests a focus on preventing the misuse of AI in judicial decision-making. The goal is to ensure that digital tools do not create new barriers to justice, or automate biases that could disadvantage litigants. The judiciary intends to use these systems to streamline processes while keeping the final authority with human judges [1].
“"AI should assist and not decide equities,"”
This stance establishes a clear boundary between administrative efficiency and judicial authority in India. By rejecting AI as a primary decision-maker, the court is prioritizing the 'human element' of law—such as empathy and moral reasoning—over the algorithmic speed of digital dispute resolution, signaling a cautious approach to legal tech adoption.
