INDIA’S COURTS are severely overburdened. As a recent report notes, over 50 million cases remain pending in India’s justice system. At the current pace, it would take “over 300 years” to clear the backlog. This strain arises from lengthy manual procedures, shortages of judges and staff, and logistical delays.
In this context, artificial intelligence (AI) offers promise: AI-driven speech-to-text tools can help transcribe judges’ dictations and testimony, and case‐management algorithms can streamline workflows. For example, the Delhi courts have piloted “Adalat AI,” a machine-learning system that lets judges dictate orders for automatic transcription and summary. Such active steps aim to relax the justice system from manual clerical work, freeing judges to focus more on adjudication. However, the use of AI in courts also raises critical concerns about privacy, bias, and accountability. To realise the benefits (faster case processing, wider access to legal aid, predictive analytics, etc.) without undermining justice, clear policies are essential.
Without guardrails, AI use could violate litigants’ confidentiality, erode trust in verdicts, or entrench unfairness. As the Kerala High Court’s policy observes, AI “can be beneficial, but…their indiscriminate use might result in negative consequences, including violation of privacy rights, data-security risks, and erosion of trust in judicial decision-making”. In short, formal guidelines are needed to ensure AI promotes – not compromises – the rule of law and due process.
Kerala High Court policy
On July 19, the Kerala High Court issued a pioneering “Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary” to steer AI adoption. It applies to all district judges, judicial magistrates, their staff and interns in Kerala. The policy covers all AI tools – including generative language models – and any devices (court PCs, personal laptops, smartphones) used in judicial work. In practice, only AI tools formally approved by the courts (“Approved AI Tools”) may be used for judicial tasks.
Kerala’s policy insists on strict safeguards. Crucially, “under no circumstances AI tools are [to be] used as a substitute for decision-making or legal reasoning”. The policy requires that AI use must never compromise core judicial values like transparency, fairness, accountability and confidentiality. It warns that many AI systems generate errors or biased results, so “extreme caution” is mandated – judges must meticulously check any citations or translations produced by AI tools.
Other key provisions focus on data security and process control. Because most AI services are cloud-based, the policy forbids inputting sensitive case data (personal identifiers, privileged communications, etc.) into unapproved tools. Unencrypted cloud services are to be avoided except when an approved solution exists. Courts must keep audit logs of all AI usage – tracking which tool was used and how the human reviewer validated it. Importantly, the policy mandates training: all judicial staff are to attend programs on the legal, ethical and technical aspects of AI. Any AI malfunctions or misuse must be reported up the chain for review. Violations of these rules can bring disciplinary action. The High Court also promises to update the policy as technology evolves.
In sum, the Kerala policy is rigorous: it allows AI as an assistant under heavy guard, not as an independent decider. By codifying principles (human oversight, confidentiality, verification) it sets a responsible framework. This makes Kerala the first Indian court to spell out AI use rules, serving as an important pilot.
Implementation challenges
Kerala’s initiative is laudable but partial. Meaningful reform across India will require addressing systemic needs. First, courts and lawyers need robust digital infrastructure. Many Indian courts still lack reliable computers, local AI models, or high-speed internet – prerequisites for any advanced tool. Without investment in hardware and networking (and perhaps AI modules trained on local languages), even a well-designed policy will fall short.
Judicial education is another gap: judges and clerks must be trained not only in how to use AI tools, but also how to spot errors and understand their limits. Kerala’s policy wisely calls for such training by the judicial academy. Nationally, Judicial Academies and Bar education programs should integrate AI literacy into curricula.
Data protection and privacy must also be bolstered. Courts should adopt stringent internal rules. The Kerala policy forbids sharing case facts with generic AI services – in line with privacy norms – but broader legal safeguards (client confidentiality, data encryption standards, contractual controls over cloud services) are needed.
Standardisation of “approved” tools is another challenge. Kerala delegates approval to its High Court, but in practice there should be a vetted list of AI products (perhaps by NIC or a court-managed tech body) whose outputs meet legal standards. This requires collaboration with tech experts.
Public awareness is also key. Litigants and lawyers should understand what AI can (and cannot) do. In the form of guidelines, Courts may consider disclosure rules: if an AI tool helped draft a document, parties might be warned and allowed to challenge it. While the Kerala policy does not mandate disclosure, it does require judges to log AI use and flag any issues. Educating the bar and public will foster trust.
Finally, coordinated policy is essential. Kerala’s rules are state-specific; India lacks a unified judicial AI framework. Without national guidance, states may fragment their approaches. The Supreme Court or Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) must issue sweeping principles. Indeed, neither have yet formulated any formal AI policy or ethical code for lawyers.
A constant coordinated effort – bringing together the Supreme Court, High Courts, the eCourts Mission, the BCI, and tech experts – is needed to craft a cohesive framework. Such collaboration would ensure consistent standards on infrastructure, data governance, accreditation of tools, and continuing education.
International and comparative perspectives
Other jurisdictions are moving quickly on AI in justice. In the U.S., for example, the American Bar Association (‘ABA’) has been proactive. In July 2024, its Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued a fifteen page Formal Opinion 512 on lawyers’ use of generative AI. This guide emphasises that attorneys must consider their existing ethical duties (competence, confidentiality, conflict-checking, communication and fees) when using AI. The ABA stressed that lawyers remain responsible for AI-driven work – they must supervise AI outputs, check for errors, and ensure client consent where appropriate. Parallelly, the ABA’s Center for Innovation formed a Task Force on Law & AI (2023) and in 2024 released its Year-I report. That report examines AI’s impact on legal practice – opportunities, ethical dilemmas, generative AI, access to justice, court integration, education, and risk management. It reflects a comprehensive, rights-based approach.
In the U.K., the Law Society of England & Wales has likewise engaged with AI. In October 2024, the Society unveiled an AI strategy built on three “I” pillars: Innovation, Impact, and Integrity. As stated, core to the plan is “integrity” – using AI responsibly and ethically. The aim is to help solicitors navigate AI while upholding the rule of law and equal access to justice. The Law Society also published practical resources (including a “Generative AI essentials” guide) and has a dedicated Technology and Law Committee which “shape[s] developing policy initiatives including courts modernization” and contributes to debates on AI’s impact on legal practice.
The professional bodies in both countries see a role for bar associations in issuing guidance and accrediting tools.
Singapore’s judiciary provides a striking example of court-level policy. In late 2024, the Singapore Supreme Court issued a “Guide on the Use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users” (Registrar’s Circular No. 1/2024). Rather than banning AI, Singapore permits its use under conditions: any lawyer or litigant who uses AI in preparing court documents must ensure the output is accurate, relevant and lawful.They must not use AI to fabricate evidence or mislead the court. Users will retain full responsibility and must verify all AI-generated content. The guide requires proper source attributions and prohibits revealing confidential court materials to external AI tools. This balanced stance fosters innovation but requires transparency and verification which offers a much-needed model for India.
At the global level, UNESCO has taken up the cause of AI and the Rule of Law. In August 2024, it published draft global guidelines for AI use in courts and tribunals. These guidelines aim to align AI deployment with “fundamental principles of justice, human rights, and the rule of law”. They draw on real-world court use cases (translation, summarisation, outcome prediction, etc.) and caution against dangers (recent reports of fabricated case law in judgments due to AI).
Notably, UNESCO enumerated thirteen guiding principles for judicial AI: protection of human rights, proportionality, safety, security, awareness, transparency, accountability/auditability, explainability, accuracy, human oversight, human-centric design, responsibility, and multi-stakeholder governance. These are consistent with Kerala’s emphasis on fairness, confidentiality, and human supervision.
India’s policymakers can draw on UNESCO’s AI and the Rule of Law initiative framework to ensure that AI in courts respects due process and fundamental rights.
AI beyond the bench: Tools for lawyers and litigants
AI tools are not limited to judges’ chambers; they are reshaping legal practice too. Many law firms and solo lawyers already use analytics and drafting aids. For instance, Lex Machina (a LexisNexis product) applies AI-powered analysis to court data, converting millions of legal documents into structured insights on judges’ behaviors, counsel track records, case durations, damages, and more. Such tools help attorneys predict outcomes and craft strategy. Similarly, Blue J Legal (a Canadian legal tech startup) uses supervised machine learning to forecast tax and labor law disputes. Its “Tax Foresight” product claims to predict dispute outcomes with up to 90 percent accuracy, based on historical rulings.
In India, homegrown platforms are emerging. Legodesk is a cloud-based practice management system for law firms and corporate counsels. It automates tasks like generating hundreds of legal notices in seconds and provides case management dashboards.
Such tools demonstrate that AI and automation can greatly boost the productivity of lawyers – especially in routine work. These examples underscore that AI policy must extend beyond courts to the entire legal ecosystem. Solo practitioners and small firms – who might lack in‐house counsel or large budgets – also need guidance on ethical AI use. For them, the BCI or State Bar Associations should consider issuing rules or best practices.
Just as the ABA Opinion 512 governs individual lawyers using AI, India’s Bar Councils should clarify duties of competence, confidentiality and disclosure in the AI context. Lawyers must be educated about verifying AI outputs and safeguarding client data. Law schools too should incorporate AI literacy into curricula, preparing future lawyers to use new tools critically.
Constitutional values and the future of AI in law
As India embraces AI in its justice system, it must never lose sight of fundamental constitutional values. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, requiring judicial processes to be transparent, impartial and human-centric. Any AI deployment must preserve meaningful human oversight. AI can assist but must not undercut a litigant’s right to have a judgment decided by an accountable judge. The Kerala guidelines rightly insist that “the delivery of justice” remains the judge’s domain.
Similarly, the equality guarantee demands that AI applications not entrench bias; fairness and non-discrimination must be built into tools and scrutinised. AI’s expansion in legal assistance, by courts and lawyers, resulting in the cutting of court delays or offering automated advice, aligns with the vision of Article 39A (access to justice). If courts do not effectively expand on this front, the unequal conditions of digital divide resulting from techno-elitism within litigants will widen.
As I have written earlier, an efficient integration of AI into our judicial system is not merely a matter of modernisation - it directly supports the realisation of “complete justice,” a constitutional duty of the Supreme Court under Article 142. In this sense, AI is not only an external add-on to justice delivery, but also a potential instrument for fulfilling the very constitutional promise that undergirds our legal system.
Ultimately, India’s AI journey should align with the rule of law. Courts should be transparent about AI usage (for instance, through auditing and disclosure), offering remedies if AI errors occur. Collaboratively, India’s judiciary, legislators, bar leaders and technologists must ensure AI tools uphold due process and public trust.
Kerala’s policy is a valuable first step, demonstrating that judicious AI can be integrated responsibly into courts. But without complementary national standards, technical capacity-building and public engagement, AI risks becoming a double-edged sword. By learning from global efforts (ABA ethics, UNESCO guidelines, Singapore’s court rules) and by embedding constitutional guarantees into any AI framework, India can harness AI to speed up justice and strengthen the very principles of fairness, transparency and equality that its Constitution enshrines.