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.