From Courtrooms to Code: Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Indian Judiciary

Abstract

The rapid advance of Artificial Intelligence into courtrooms and legal systems has inspired both admiration and anxiety in almost equal measure, which, in legal discourse, is usually a sign that something important is happening. This paper examines the growing role of AI in the Indian judiciary, a system presently carrying a burden of over 50 million pending cases, where justice often moves with deliberation not entirely of its own choosing. It further evaluates the constitutional, legal, and ethical consequences of entrusting judicial functions, even partially, to algorithmic tools that possess remarkable efficiency, though not necessarily wisdom. Drawing upon Indian constitutional principles, comparative jurisprudence from the United States and the European Union, and evolving regulatory instruments such as the EU AI Act, this paper examines four issues of considerable confusion. First, whether algorithmic bias can survive the scrutiny of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which are not particularly hospitable to discrimination, whether human or digital. Secondly, whether opaque AI systems offend the guarantee of due process under Article 21, especially when decisions emerge from what is politely described as the “black box” and impolitely experienced as one. Thirdly, the paper considers the problem of accountability and the growing necessity of explainability in AI- assisted adjudication, for a system of justice cannot merely pronounce conclusions; it must also reveal the path by which it arrived at them. Finally, it analyses concerns relating to data privacy and evidentiary integrity under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The paper concludes by proposing a tiered, rights- based regulatory framework for the integration of AI into Indian courts, anchored in transparency, non- discrimination, judicial sovereignty, and meaningful human oversight, the last remaining indispensable because constitutional adjudication requires not only analytical precision, but institutional accountability grounded in human judgment.