Artificial Intelligence Is the Only Way Forward for Judicial Reform

 Justice P. S. Kailasam, who served on the Supreme Court in the 1970s, once observed that on Mondays and Fridays the Court heard roughly 280 Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), and nearly half of them were admitted. Today, the picture is dramatically different. More than 96,000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court of India, with some litigants waiting for justice for over three decades.

Incidentally, Justice Kailasam was the father-in-law of senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram and the father of designated senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram. P Chidambaram also finds mention in K. K. Venugopal's recent memoir, An Accidental Lawyer: My Adventures in Law and Life. Nonagenarian KK Venugopal is himself a legendary lawyer.

In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal stated the other day that the Supreme Court has 96,024 pending cases, including 10,094 pending for more than ten years, 558 pending for over twenty years, and 26 cases that have remained unresolved for more than thirty years. Across the country, the total pendency has crossed 5.64 crore cases, highlighting the staggering burden on India's judicial system.

The Minister pointed out that case disposal falls within the judiciary's domain and that delays arise from several factors, including the complexity of cases, the availability of evidence, and the cooperation of investigating agencies, witnesses, and litigants. He also referred to measures such as the ₹7,210 crore e-Courts Phase III project and the establishment of Fast Track Special Courts to improve access to justice and reduce pendency.

While these initiatives deserve appreciation, they do not address the fundamental problem. Unless Artificial Intelligence is integrated extensively into the justice delivery system, the backlog will continue to grow. Merely increasing the sanctioned strength of judges—from the Supreme Court to the district judiciary—will not produce the transformative results that the country urgently needs.

Consider the thousands of cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that continue to clog district courts. Many of these cases involve repetitive factual issues and standard legal questions, making them ideal candidates for AI-assisted case management. Likewise, the cross-examination of multiple witnesses, which can often be completed within a day through proper scheduling and technological assistance, routinely stretches over several years because of procedural delays and inefficient case management.

It is perplexing that the Indian judiciary, from the Supreme Court to the district courts, remains hesitant to embrace Artificial Intelligence on a meaningful scale. AI is not a substitute for judges; it is a tool that can significantly enhance judicial efficiency by assisting in research, document analysis, scheduling, transcription, translation, precedent identification, drafting, and case management, thereby allowing judges to devote more time to adjudication.

India is home to one of the world's largest pools of scientific and technological talent. Yet even comparatively modest reforms, such as the widespread live streaming of court proceedings, have taken years to implement and are still absent in hundreds of courts. This slow pace of technological adoption reflects an institutional reluctance to embrace innovation.

Resistance to AI often stems from concerns about reliability, accountability, judicial independence, and the possibility of technological errors. While such concerns deserve careful consideration, they cannot become an excuse for maintaining an outdated system that is already overwhelmed by mounting arrears. Proper safeguards, human oversight, and phased implementation can address these legitimate apprehensions.

The judiciary exists to deliver timely justice. When millions of citizens spend years—sometimes decades—awaiting decisions, incremental reforms are no longer enough. Technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence, is not a luxury but a necessity. Nations that embrace technological innovation will strengthen their justice systems; those that resist it risk falling further behind. If India is serious about judicial reform, the large-scale adoption of Artificial Intelligence is no longer a matter of choice—it is an imperative.

 

Allahabad High Court Judge's Appropriate Decision to Recuse Himself

 An Allahabad High Court judge has, in my humble opinion, taken the right decision to recuse himself from a case. He stated in open court that he had been approached by both parties to show them some favour. In my humble opinion, the matter concerns the grant of bail to a large number of persons lodged in jail.

There was a time when even the faintest whisper casting doubt on a judge's impartiality was enough for the judge to recuse himself or herself, without the slightest hesitation. I vividly remember an incident involving the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He recused himself from hearing a case on the ground that the counsel appearing for the management was a distant relative of his. I personally told him that I had no objection to his deciding the matter, but he politely declined and recused himself, nonetheless.

The Presiding Officer was a retired District Judge from Uttar Pradesh who had been appointed by the Delhi government to head the Industrial Tribunal. Such conduct by judges inspires confidence not only among litigants but also in the minds of the general public. It reinforces the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

The contrast with the present day is striking. Increasingly, parties are compelled to seek the recusal of judges, often leading to public controversy and allegations against the judiciary. The proceedings in certain high-profile cases, including those involving Mr Arvind Kejriwal, illustrate how contentious such issues have become.

There is, of course, a legitimate concern that unscrupulous litigants may make baseless allegations against judges who are otherwise fair, honest, and upright, merely to secure a different Bench. However, where circumstances create a reasonable apprehension that a judge's impartiality may be questioned—or where the judge himself discloses that attempts have been made by litigants to improperly influence the proceedings—it is both prudent and appropriate for the judge to step aside. Such tactics may succeed only once or twice, but they cannot become a substitute for the judicial process.

In the present case, the Allahabad High Court judge has adopted the most appreciable course. Had he proceeded to hear the matter, whichever side lost would almost certainly have questioned the fairness of the outcome. By recusing himself, he has protected not only the integrity of the proceedings but also the credibility of the institution he serves

The Monument Associated with Maulana Jauhar Must Be Reconsidered

Instead of merely demolishing the unauthorised structures of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar University in Rampur, it would be more meaningful to rename the institution after a nationalist Muslim or Dalit leader who made a lasting contribution to education and social upliftment. Retaining the name of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, in my view, is inconsistent with the secular and democratic ideals of independent India. The choice of such a name reflected the ideological preferences of its founder, Azam Khan.

Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar and his brother, Maulana Shaukat Ali, were among the most influential Muslim political leaders of the pre-independence period. Although Mohammad Ali Jauhar briefly associated himself with the Indian National Congress, he later distanced himself from it and aligned himself with the politics of the Muslim League. During his presidency of the Congress, he attended a session of the Muslim League and sharply criticised Mahatma Gandhi, making the controversial remark: “I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musselman to be better than Mr. Gandhi.” Such statements reflected the deep political and ideological divisions that had emerged during the closing decades of British rule.

Gandhi had initially supported the Khilafat Movement and worked closely with the Ali brothers in the hope of fostering Hindu-Muslim unity. However, after the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate and the collapse of the movement, their political paths diverged. Mohammad Ali Jauhar became an outspoken critic of Gandhi, accusing him of inconsistency.

From this perspective, it may be argued that institutions or public monuments commemorating personalities closely associated with the politics that culminated in Partition deserve reconsideration. Such historical figures should certainly be studied in schools and universities, but naming public institutions after them raises legitimate questions about the values that independent India wishes to celebrate.

The history of Partition also contains several unresolved anomalies. It has often been argued that, during the negotiations surrounding Partition, there were proposals involving the exchange of major educational institutions, including Aligarh Muslim University and Lahore's DAV College, although these proposals never materialised. Likewise, questions continue to be raised regarding the minority character of institutions such as Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia, particularly because members of Scheduled Castes who belong to non-minority communities do not receive reservation benefits in these institutions.

It is also noteworthy that Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan, a prominent Muslim League leader associated with the demand for Pakistan, chose to remain in India after Partition and subsequently served as the first Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University in independent India, although all his three sons shifted to Pakistan and enjoyed very high positions in that country. Similarly, a number of Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan later returned and reclaimed their properties in India. These historical developments continue to influence public debate about the legacy of Partition and the manner in which independent India remembers that era.

In my opinion, while personalities such as Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar should undoubtedly remain part of India's historical discourse, public institutions and monuments bearing their names warrant a fresh and objective review. Independent India should reserve such honours for individuals whose contributions unequivocally strengthened national unity, constitutional values, and social harmony.

A Misplaced Critique: Why Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s Observations Miss the Mark

 

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s recent remarks at the Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture in Bhopal are, regrettably, neither legally sound nor logically acceptable. Expressing concern over the alleged criminalisation of "normal activities," he criticised what he termed a disproportionate police response to youths organising an Iftar and consuming chicken on a boat on the Ganga River. Questioning their arrest and subsequent three-month denial of bail, he argued that "there is no law prohibiting the consumption of chicken over the Ganga."

With the utmost respect to the honourable judge, I must strongly beg to differ. I wish to draw attention to Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses the offence of promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, or residence. Criminal liability hinges on two foundational elements: mens rea (guilty intent) and actus reus (guilty act). In this incident, both elements undeniably coexisted. The actions of these individuals on the Ganges were not benign; they constituted a deliberate offence.

In a communally sensitive atmosphere, choosing to break a religious fast by consuming meat on the Ganga—a river revered as profoundly sacred by the majority of the country—was a calculated act of provocation. This was not a simple dietary choice; it was a brazen affront designed to mock and deliberately hurt the religious sentiments of the majority community in a deeply venerated space.

It is unfortunate that instead of commending the authorities for their timely intervention—which likely prevented the situation from spiralling out of control—the honourable judge chose to criticise them. The BNS clearly stipulates that committing an offence in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies carries a penalty of up to five years of imprisonment, alongside a fine. By consuming chicken and discarding the waste directly into the holy river, the intent of these miscreants to foment unrest was glaringly clear.

 

Protests at Jantar Mantar were bound to collapse

 From day one, it was a foregone conclusion that the Jantar Mantar movement was bound to fail, as it was taken over by lumpen elements, transgenders, and loose girls spitting indecent abuse. It was an open secret that the so-called movement was foreign-funded, as the meals distributed at the protest site were ordered from Germany, the US, and Dubai. Now, with the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, there is nothing left, and most of them have already dispersed. The number of students participating in the protest was negligible, as they had already seen through the politics of some Aandolanjivis. Many faces appear only during some or other agitation.

What was most disturbing was that these protestors were crossing all the limits of obscenity during the demonstrations. There was one demonstrator who was seen flashing his private part, and many lumpen girls were seen indulging in vulgar dance. What was all the more condemnable was the misbehaviour towards media persons. They were abused and molested.

Even Sonam Wangchuk, who had brought some energy to the protests, has disowned the CJP movement. One may recall that the day Deepake returned from the US and sought permission from the Delhi police to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar, he was readily granted permission, but there were not a dozen persons with them. It was Mr Wangchuk who brought some Ladakhis to give it the look of a protest.

The real drama began to unfold when some political parties brought their own supporters to participate in the march, and they started pulling the protests in their own directions. Rahul Gandhi, who looks like a dry drug addict, changed the venue from Jantar Mantar to a high-security zone near the PM residence. Others like Akhilesh Yadav, who is totally bereft of any ideas, were clueless about the protests. Persons like Kejriwal were trying to hijack, but Dipake and his company opposed them. Thus, the protest was rudderless from the beginning. However, if the Delhi police is not allowed to take any action against the lumpen elements, it will send a bad message to law-abiding citizens and among law-enforcing agencies.

Experts will have to devise ways to Prevent Unruly Ruckus in Courtrooms

The deplorable drama witnessed yesterday, i.e. Friday, in the Supreme Court courtroom defies all logic in the functioning of the court. Nobody has a ready-made answer to how such sordid scenes can be averted. There is no doubt that both judges on the bench have a high reputation for commendable behaviour, and the way the petitioner-in-person presented his case in court appeared to be mentally deranged. In a short span of a few months, such incidents have occurred twice in the Supreme Court, and if steps are not taken to prevent them, they are bound to occur elsewhere as well.

The petitioner-in-person is said to be an advocate by training. Earlier, the person who attempted to hurl shoes at the then CJI, Justice Gawai, was also an advocate. We have been watching such incidents in Parliament, Assemblies, hospitals and other areas of public life, but courts have been largely free from such unruly behaviour. Heated arguments have certainly taken place between lawyers and judges elsewhere, but no one can blame either lawyers or judges alone. Both have been responsible in their own way; however, what happened yesterday was unprecedented.

In fact, the courts and other experts will have to jointly think over devising ways to prevent the occurrence of such incidents

Appointment of a Dalit as the General Secretary of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas Must Be Welcomed

 The appointment of Shri Krishna Mohan, a member of the Dalit community, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust in Ayodhya deserves to be wholeheartedly welcomed. He succeeds Shri Champat Rai Bansal in overseeing the administration of the grand Shri Ram Temple, one of the most significant religious and cultural projects in independent India.

This appointment also serves as a powerful response to the politics of caste symbolism. Those who repeatedly invoke the slogan of "PDA" while claiming to champion the cause of the marginalised now find their narrative seriously weakened. Shri Akhilesh Yadav and his party have long relied on caste-based political mobilisation in Uttar Pradesh. Yet the decision of the Nyas demonstrates that genuine social inclusion is achieved through meaningful responsibility and leadership, not merely through electoral rhetoric. Despite projecting himself as a modern, educated leader, Shri Yadav too often reduces public discourse to narrow caste calculations, exposing the hollowness of his claims.

The contribution of Shri Champat Rai to the construction and management of the grand Ram Temple is beyond dispute. His dedication and administrative ability have earned him widespread respect across the country and abroad. Many facilities available to devotees today—including wheelchairs for the elderly and differently abled, well-organised pilgrim services, and free darshan for all—reflect the vision and commitment of the Nyas. In several respects, these arrangements compare favourably even with those at some of India's most prominent temples.

It is, therefore, both unfortunate and puzzling that attempts are now being made to cast aspersions on the temple administration over allegations relating to donation receipts. In most temples across India, devotees make offerings as an act of faith without expecting formal receipts for every contribution. Any genuine complaint should, of course, be examined fairly. Still, it is equally important that speculation and politically motivated campaigns do not undermine the credibility of an institution built through the sacrifices and devotion of millions.

There is an old belief in the Awadh region that Ayodhya has never spared even the noblest of its inhabitants from controversy. Since the time of Lord Shri Ram and Mata Sita, great personalities associated with this sacred city have faced trials, criticism, and allegations despite their virtue. It is therefore reasonable to expect that a selfless individual like Shri Champat Rai will emerge with his integrity intact after any fair and impartial inquiry.

Ayodhya, once neglected for centuries, has today been transformed into a city of pride and spiritual grandeur. A substantial share of the credit belongs to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, whose leadership, together with the Ram Janmabhumi Nyas, has restored the city's historical and civilizational glory. This transformation will be remembered for generations. Those who seek to exploit controversies for political gain or create unnecessary discord around this sacred project may earn temporary headlines, but history is unlikely to judge them kindly.