NEW DELHI: Supreme Court’s most senior judge, Justice Vikram Nath, on Sunday said artificial intelligence could at best be a facilitator for the justice delivery system but could never replace the core task – writing judgments – which would always remain with judges.Speaking on ‘Challenges, innovations and role of AI in judicial governance’ at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s first national conference in Bengaluru, Justice Nath said, “AI can be used as a tool to augment the judicial system, but it cannot replace the judgment or judges’ minds as to what is to be decided.” Justice Nath said, “There can be no fixed data set in millions of cases dealt by courts. Take, for example, matrimonial cases, settlement of commercial cases, balancing equities – the court can understand the nuances of each case, which is factually different from the other, by reading papers and hearing the counsel. Judges alone know how to strike a balance in family partition suits.”He added, “AI cannot decide cases involving constitutional issues. There are innumerable complexities in criminal cases – how to appreciate the evidence, when to grant bail; in the same FIR there can be 10 accused, court may grant bail to nine but deny one. AI can’t deal with all these. AI is there to help us in several aspects – collate data, categorise cases, translations etc. But the judgment will remain with judges only.“Justice Nath also commended the initiative taken by SCBA president Vikas Singh on the conference.SC judge A G Masih said, “AI is not here to replace lawyers and judges. Data-driven intelligence cannot replace human conscience. The act of the courts rests on public faith to deliver justice by carefully balancing rights and liabilities and undertaking an assessment of factual circumstances with a human heart. Feelings cannot be replicated by AI, which can facilitate judicial activities but cannot substitute them.“The judge said there seemed to be a need to institutionalise guidelines for court technology and, perhaps, create a judicial-tech oversight board to maintain and check AI tools for bias and to review an automated draft. Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya said hallucination was implicit in mankind and mankind made AI. Therefore, hallucination was also implicit in AI and it was that which made it dangerous for the judiciary as it presented case law and logic that was non-existent or imaginary, he said.Delhi HC Chief Justice D K Upadhyay brought up the use of AI-assisted judgment drafting software in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, the UK, the UAE and China. “Collectively, AI is increasingly integrated in multiple domains of judicial governance from administrative efficiency to substantive support functions, while simultaneously raising important questions about accountability, fairness and limits of automation in the judicial system,” he said.Justice Upadhyay added, “AI-manipulated images, deepfakes deployed maliciously undermine the integrity of evidence and adversely impact administration of justice. Courts may have to re-examine the traditional reliance on photographs and videos… Burden on parties to establish authenticity will increase and the judiciary would have to rely more on forensic tests of such evidence.”

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday said in merit-based selections, women secure more than 50% of judicial officers’ posts across states, but in the collegium’s subjective assessment criteria, only a minuscule get selected as judges of high courts and SC.Addressing the Supreme Court Bar Association’s first national conference at Bengaluru, Justice Bhuyan said that judicial services across states had a very good representation of women, some even crossing the 50% mark. “But has it been replicated in constitutional courts? That is the question. That is where the scrutiny of the collegium system comes in. Why is it that when the assessment becomes subjective, women do not make the grade? Out of 287 SC judges since 1950, we had a total of only 11 women judges. Why? Starting with Fathima Beevi and now Justice Nagarathna, it is some 2%,” he said.Justice Bhuyan said women made up only 14% of HC judges. “In the 25 HCs, we have only two women chief justices (CJs) – Gujarat and Meghalaya. One more will become CJ in a month’s time. That is also highly inadequate, three out of 25 HCs,” he said. “My research shows that whenever the recruitment process is objective, more women enter the judicial space. When India becomes a developed nation (Viksit Bharat by 2047), there should be more parity in gender representation in judiciary. SC must be a rainbow institution, truly reflecting the diversity of the nation,” Justice Bhuyan said.Former CJI B R Gavai said there were multiple SC rulings that stated if the name of a person recommended for judgeship in an HC was returned for reconsideration by govt and reiterated by the collegium, govt had no option but to appoint them. “But there are many instances where even after repeated reiterations, the persons have not been appointed,” he said, adding, “The collegium is not a perfect system but at least for the time being, it is best suited for the country.“He said the judiciary had been criticised mainly for its inability to tackle arrears and backlogs, delay in disposal of cases at various levels, lack of transparency in administrative decision-making (appointment of judges), long vacations, and lack of diversity, particularly representation of women in constitutional courts.The former CJI said SC had erred on many instances, including in the first major judgment related to right to life in the A K Gopalan case to the Emergency-era A D M Jabalpur case. “Criticism is important for any institution, including the judiciary,” he said.He recalled the first speech of the first CJI, Harilal Jekisondas Kania, who had said SC must operate independent of the legislature and the executive while interpreting the Constitution as a living document.Justice Bhuyan said, “SC must earn the respect of citizens, not demand it… Judicial power relies not just on law but trust and legitimacy. Accountability, integrity and transparency must be made essential for the judiciary to function effectively in a democratic society. The judiciary neither has the purse nor the sword. Its only asset is the goodwill of people, which is the core of judicial strength.”He said in a developed nation, institutions must have functional autonomy. “Investigating agencies as well as the media should be able to discharge their duties without any political interference or control. Development should be in accordance with directive principles of state policy and no one should be left out of development, especially those who have been historically neglected.”

NEW DELHI: SC judge Ujjal Bhuyan Sunday said the political executive’s goal of Viksit Bharat by 2047 requires more room for debate and dissent without criminalising these, and erasure of “deep social fault lines” reflected in caste-based discrimination and atrocities on Dalits. Addressing the first national conference of SC Bar Association in Bengaluru, Justice Bhuyan said mindless arrests under anti-terrorism law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act with minuscule convictions “cannot be a model of Viksit Bharat”. He said, “My model of Viksit Bharat is equal distribution of wealth and disappearance of acute disparity… which is also the goal set in directive principles of state policies in Constitution.” He said in Viksit Bharat, “judiciary must remain judiciary… it can’t be an eternal critic or a cheerleader.”‘Low convictions under UAPA show overuse, if not misuse, of the law’Presenting data — from 2019 till 2023 — of people arrested under UAPA, he said thousands have been arrested, but the average conviction rate hovered around 5%. “It shows consistently low conviction. What does it indicate — overuse if not misuse (of the law) and its impact on the criminal justice system. How much burden does it put on courts? This shows the vast majority were arrested but could not be convicted. This indicates many arrests were premature and unsupported by sufficient evidence,” he said.“With a general conviction rate of 5% or less, and acquittal of more than 95% of UAPA cases, why should an accused be kept in jail without even filing a chargesheet against him? This can’t be a model of Viksit Bharat,” said Justice Bhuyan, adding that such case overload causes backlog, pendency, and delay in justice delivery, together impacting the general principle of ‘bail is the norm and jail the exception’.