Introduction
Amid growing enthusiasm around the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal system, Supreme Court judge Justice Dipankar Datta has issued a timely and cautionary reminder: while technology may assist the judiciary, it cannot replace judges, especially in the face of the Supreme Court’s rapidly increasing caseload.
Speaking at a panel discussion titled “Law, Lawyers, and AI: The Next Frontier”, organised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), Justice Datta highlighted the alarming rise in Supreme Court filings and stressed that the solution lies in strengthening judicial capacity, not technological substitution.
Explosion of Litigation Before the Supreme Court
Justice Datta drew attention to the stark numbers reflecting the mounting pressure on the Supreme Court:
- In 2018, the Supreme Court received approximately 40,000 filings.
- At that time, the sanctioned judicial strength stood at 31 judges.
- Although the strength was increased to 34 judges in mid-2019, it has remained unchanged since.
- Meanwhile, filings have surged to nearly 75,000 cases annually.
This dramatic increase, Justice Datta noted, has resulted in an institutional strain that no amount of AI-driven efficiency can resolve without increasing the number of judges.
Importantly, he clarified that the issue does not lie with citizens approaching the Court but with the system’s limited capacity to meet rising demand.
AI as an Assistive Tool, Not a Decision-Maker
While acknowledging the utility of AI in the legal profession, Justice Datta drew a firm line between assistance and adjudication.
According to him, AI may be helpful in:
- Legal research
- Case preparation
- Language refinement in judgments
- Administrative assistance
However, the constitutional duty of adjudication, which involves understanding intent, motive, and human behaviour, cannot be delegated to machines.
“AI must be kept at our feet and should not be allowed to sit on our head,” Justice Datta remarked, using a vivid metaphor to underline the subordinate role technology must play in judicial functioning.
The Irreplaceable Human Element in Judging
Justice Datta emphasised that judging involves assessing deeply human motivations—what Indian philosophy describes as hinsa (violence), lobh (greed), kaam (lust), and krodh (anger).
These elements, he observed, are central to litigation and cannot be adequately evaluated by AI, which lacks human intuition, empathy, and moral reasoning.
He further noted that the courtroom is not merely a site of data processing but a space of human interaction between judges, lawyers, and litigants, something no algorithm can replicate.
Justice Datta’s Personal Experience With Judicial Intuition
Sharing a rare personal anecdote, Justice Datta revealed that he has twice dictated orders in open court but later refused to sign them after re-examining the case files and realising that the conclusions required correction.
Under established Supreme Court precedent, a judge may alter their decision until the order is signed, a process that reflects human introspection and self-correction.
Justice Datta suggested that such intuitive reassessment is something predictive AI systems may struggle to emulate, reinforcing the need for human judgment at the core of adjudication.
Ethical Warning to Lawyers on Use of AI
Issuing a stern caution to members of the Bar, Justice Datta stressed that the trust between the Bar and the Bench is fragile and could be permanently damaged by unethical use of AI tools.
He warned against:
- Submitting AI-generated content without verification
- Using AI to mislead courts
- Relying blindly on machine-generated legal analysis
Justice Datta placed the ultimate responsibility on lawyers, stating that verification of AI-assisted content is a non-negotiable professional duty.
Misuse of AI, he cautioned, would irreversibly erode the foundational trust on which the legal system functions.
Concerns Over Confidentiality and Public AI Platforms
Justice Datta also flagged serious concerns regarding the irresponsible use of public AI platforms such as ChatGPT, particularly in judicial and legal drafting.
He warned that uploading:
- Draft judgments
- Confidential case details
- Sensitive legal material
onto public AI tools could expose confidential data, as such systems learn from user inputs.
This, he suggested, raises grave ethical and institutional risks for the judiciary and legal profession alike.
Need for Better Administrative AI in Supreme Court Registry
While sceptical of AI in adjudication, Justice Datta strongly supported the use of administrative AI tools, especially within the Supreme Court Registry.
He pointed out that the Registry currently fails to:
- Properly segregate different types of bail applications
- Distinguish between regular bail pleas and bail in appeals under Section 389 CrPC
Such classification errors, he noted, force judges to approach fundamentally different matters with the same mindset, undermining the principle of presumption of innocence.
Targeted AI solutions in court administration, according to Justice Datta, could significantly improve judicial efficiency without compromising human judgment.
Advocacy, Moral Courage, and the Limits of Technology
Concluding his remarks, Justice Datta acknowledged that he would likely “endure” the rise of AI during the remainder of his judicial tenure. However, he underscored that the core of advocacy remains unchanged.
True advocacy, he said, lies in:
- Moral courage
- Willingness to argue unpopular causes
- Commitment to justice beyond convenience
These qualities, he asserted, are inherently human and cannot be replicated by machines.
Conclusion
Justice Dipankar Datta’s remarks strike a careful balance between embracing technological progress and defending the constitutional role of human judges. As Supreme Court filings continue to rise exponentially, his message is clear: AI may assist, but only more judges can deliver justice at scale.
The future of the judiciary, he suggested, lies not in replacing human decision-makers with machines, but in augmenting human capacity while preserving ethical, intuitive, and moral judgment at the heart of the legal system.
Also Read
How to Manage Stress During Law Entrance Exam Preparation
PAID Internship Opportunity: Square Circle Clinic (NALSAR), Apply Now!
