SC judge: Artificial intelligence will never be able to complete core work of judgment writing

NEW DELHI: Artificial intelligence can at best be a facilitator in the justice delivery system but can never replace the core task – writing judgments – which has always been borne by judges, top Supreme Court judge Vikram Nath said on Sunday.Speaking at the first national conference of the Supreme Court Bar Association in Bengaluru on “Challenges, Innovations and Role of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Governance”, Justice Nath said, “AI can be used as a tool to enhance the judicial system, but it cannot replace the judgment or the judge’s thoughts on the decision to be taken.” Judge Nutt said, “It is impossible to have a fixed data set for the millions of cases handled by the courts. Take matrimonial cases, settlements in business cases, balancing equity, for example. The court can understand the nuances of each case by reading the documents and hearing the opinions of the lawyers, and these nuances are actually different from other cases. Only the judge knows how to strike a balance in family division proceedings.”He added, “AI cannot decide cases involving constitutional issues. There are myriad complexities in criminal cases – how to appreciate evidence, when to grant bail; there can be 10 accused in the same FIR and the court may grant bail to nine but reject one. AI cannot handle all these. AI can help us in several aspects – collating data, classifying cases, translation, etc. But the verdict will be decided only by the judge.”“Justice Nath also commended SCBA Chairman Vikas Singh for the initiative taken at the meeting.Supreme Court Justice AG Masih said: “Artificial intelligence is not meant to replace lawyers and judges. Data-driven intelligence cannot replace human conscience. The conduct of courts depends on public belief to deliver justice by carefully balancing rights and responsibilities and evaluating the factual situation with the human heart.” Artificial intelligence cannot replicate emotions. It can facilitate judicial activities, but it cannot replace them.“The judges said there seemed to be a need to institutionalize court technology guidelines and perhaps establish a judicial technology oversight committee to maintain and check AI tools for bias and review automated drafts. Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya said illusions are implicit in humans and humans create artificial intelligence. Therefore, there is also illusion implicit in AI, which is dangerous for the judiciary as it raises case law and logic that does not exist or is imagined, he said.Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay brought up the use of AI-assisted judgment drafting software in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, UK, UAE and China. “Overall, artificial intelligence is increasingly integrated into multiple areas of judicial governance, from administrative efficiency to substantive support functions, while raising important questions about the accountability, fairness and limitations of automation in the justice system,” he said.Justice Upadhyay added: “AI-manipulated images, deepfakes maliciously undermine the integrity of evidence and adversely affect the administration of justice. Courts may have to re-examine traditional reliance on photos and videos…The burden on parties to establish authenticity will increase and the judiciary will have to rely more on forensic testing of such evidence.”