Justice Manmohan: AI in Judiciary Meant to Assist, Not Replace Judges

Introduction:

Judiciary at the Threshold of a New Revolution, Justice Manmohan, a judge on the Supreme Court of India, recently expressed a powerful vision for the future of India's judicial system, positioning it firmly at the brink of a "fourth industrial revolution." While addressing a conference in Delhi on 29 November 2025, centered on “Transforming Justice Delivery System with AI & Technology,” he emphasized the critical need to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judiciary processes to tackle rising cases, all the while cautioning about the risks of unregulated technological implementation.

Central to his speech was a primary issue: as society swiftly moves into the digital era, the legal system still resolves conflicts based on regulations intended for a mainly tangible environment. He observed that this disconnect becomes especially evident when courts face contemporary issues like NFTs, digital art, and rights based on data.

Do Traditional Systems of Justice Delivery Have Limits?

Justice Manmohan emphasized that courts, as guardians of the Constitution and defenders of civil liberties, need to carefully evaluate if conventional methods can effectively address intricate, technology-orientated conflicts of the 21st century. He noted that depending solely on old techniques can lead to stagnation.

Employing a vivid metaphor, he stated, “we cannot move forward while gazing in the rearview mirror,” indicating the necessity for legal progress without sacrificing constitutional principles.

Scale, Speed, and Access: Why Technology Is No Longer Optional:

Emphasizing the immense scale of India's justice delivery issues, Justice Manmohan noted that the judiciary caters to a population of 1.4 billion individuals while contending with more than 50 million unresolved cases. He stressed that these figures signify not just abstract numbers but millions of individuals awaiting justice.

Structural constraints, like limited working hours and a low judge-to-population ratio of 21 judges per million, prevent addressing pendency through mere incremental reforms. He stated that technology is the essential “force multiplier.”

Based on the COVID-19 experience, Justice Manmohan highlighted how the judiciary swiftly moved to virtual hearings, carrying out millions of sessions via video conferencing. He contended that this change demonstrated the Indian judiciary's ability to adapt and innovate when the situation requires.

AI in Judiciary: From Automation to Augmentation:

In response to worries regarding machine-driven justice, Justice Manmohan emphasized that the judiciary is not shifting towards “Robo-Judges.” Rather, the emphasis lies on augmented intelligence, in which AI improves judicial efficiency without supplanting human discernment.

He mentioned significant projects:

• SUVAS facilitates immediate translation of rulings into local languages, enhancing access to justice.

• SUPACE, an AI-driven research tool that helps judges by examining extensive amounts of case law and information.

Real-time transcription powered by Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary is currently utilized in Constitution Bench hearings to guarantee precise documentation of oral arguments.

In addition to research support, he emphasized AI's capability in case clustering, enabling the organization of thousands of related cases, like land acquisition disputes, to facilitate adjudication and minimize delays.

Learning from Global Experiences

Justice Manmohan stressed the significance of learning through comparison while warning against unthinking emulation. He mentioned China’s Internet Courts, which settle millions of cases completely online in a matter of minutes, prompting worries about impersonal justice. Conversely, AI risk-assessment tools such as COMPAS in the U.S., utilized for bail and sentencing, have been criticized for inherent biases.

Considering India’s constitutional principles and social variety, he emphasized that AI implementation should be tailored, functioning within a “human-in-the-loop” system where human judges hold final authority.

Can Judging Be Regarded as a Human Art?

Justice Manmohan firmly emphasized that adjudication is essentially a human endeavor. Although AI can analyze data, it lacks the ability to understand human pain, recognize emotional subtleties, or exercise fair judgement. Especially in criminal justice, sentencing demands compassion and ethical reasoning, traits that algorithms cannot replicate.

What Does a Hybrid Justice System Look Like in Practice?

Envisioning the future, he imagined a justice system that combines digital efficiency with human principles. He promoted the expansion of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for high-volume, low-stakes issues and utilizing AI-assisted mediation to settle disputes prior to entering the courts. He emphasized the need to reform legal education to equip future lawyers for a justice system influenced by technology.

Way forward:

Justice Manmohan finished by emphasizing to the legal community that AI in Judiciary serves as a tool, not a magic charm. Artificial Intelligence should uphold the rule of law rather than replace it. The autonomy, knowledge, and compassion of human judges continue to be the paramount protection of justice. As India adopts AI in Judiciary, innovation must align with constitutional principles, ensuring that efficiency never overshadows our humanity. Stay Ahead in Legal Practice

Whether you’re a lawyer, paralegal, or law student, Lawttorney AI helps you:

• Save time on research

• Avoid errors in drafting

• Make data-driven legal decisions

🎯 Join our exclusive webinar to see Lawttorney.AI in action and transform the way you work!

👉 Reserve your spot now

FAQs

Why is incorporating AI in the Judiciary considered necessary in India?

India’s judiciary faces massive pendency with over 50 million cases and a low judge-to-population ratio, AI acts as a force multiplier by improving speed, efficiency, case management, and access to justice, which cannot be achieved through traditional methods alone.

Does AI replace judges in India’s judicial system?

No. AI is meant to augment judicial work, not replace judges. Human judgement, discretion, empathy, and constitutional responsibility remain central, with AI only assisting in research, translation, transcription, and case organization.

How should AI be implemented in India’s judiciary to align with constitutional principles?

AI should be adopted in a tailored, regulated, and “human-in-the-loop” manner, ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability, while preserving judicial independence, human oversight, and the core values of justice and compassion.