AI-driven speech-to-text tools can help transcribe judges’ dictations and testimony, and case‐management algorithms can streamline workflows. For example, the Delhi courts have piloted “Adalat AI,” a machine-learning system that lets judges dictate orders for automatic transcription and summary. Such active steps aim to relax the justice system from manual clerical work, freeing judges to focus more on adjudication. However, the use of AI in courts also raises critical concerns about privacy, bias, and accountability. To realise the benefits (faster case processing, wider access to legal aid, predictive analytics, etc.) without undermining justice, clear policies are essential.
Without guardrails, AI use could violate litigants’ confidentiality, erode trust in verdicts, or entrench unfairness. As the Kerala High Court’s policy observes, AI “can be beneficial, but…their indiscriminate use might result in negative consequences, including violation of privacy rights, data-security risks, and erosion of trust in judicial decision-making”. In short, formal guidelines are needed to ensure AI promotes – not compromises – the rule of law and due process.
On July 19, the Kerala High Court issued a pioneering “Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary” to steer AI adoption. It applies to all district judges, judicial magistrates, their staff and interns in Kerala. The policy covers all AI tools – including generative language models – and any devices (court PCs, personal laptops, smartphones) used in judicial work. In practice, only AI tools formally approved by the courts (“Approved AI Tools”) may be used for judicial tasks.
by Harsh Gour
22/07/2025
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/spring/summer-2020/human-compatible-artificial-intelligence-problem-control-stuart Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control by Stuart Russell
SPRING/SUMMER 2020 • CATO JOURNAL By Thomas A. Hemphill
many governments around the world are equipping themselves with advisory boards to help with the process of developing AI regulations. Most promising is the EU’s High‐Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Also, agreements, rules, and standards are beginning to emerge for user privacy, data exchange, and avoiding racial bias (the EU’s GDPR legislation, for example). But, at present, there are no implementable recommendations that can be made to governments or other organizations on maintaining control over AI systems, primarily because the terms “safe and controllable” (reflecting the validity of the “provable beneficial” approach) do not have precise meanings...
the potential positive uses for AI in society (such as advancements in scientific research) and the potential for misusing AI (such as automated extortion). Ignoring the potential for super intelligent AI technology to have catastrophic consequences for humanity would be highly risky. Indeed, Russell cautions that silence over discussing these potentially catastrophic consequences will only ensure a greater probability of this endgame occurring...his approach as one of “responsible innovation,” which requires all relevant stakeholders in the innovation system to embrace a sense of individual and collective responsibility.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/consulting/articles/ai-ethicist-and-ai-bias.html
Does your company need a Chief AI Ethics Officer, an AI Ethicist, AI Ethics Council, or all three?
Extracts: Just like their human counterparts in the workforce, AI systems are expected to adhere to social norms and ethics, and to make fair decisions in ways that are consistent, transparent, explainable, and unbiased. Of course, figuring out what is ethical and socially acceptable isn’t always easy – even for human workers.
Systemic bias remains a difficult and persistent challenge for humans and society in general. And unethical behavior has always been a risk in business. However, AI increases those problems exponentially.
With human workers and person-to-person interactions, the scope and impact of unethical behavior is typically limited by a person’s reach. But the reach of AI systems can be millions of times greater. ..
Unethical or misbehaving AI can have severe consequences, including lawsuits, regulatory fines, angry customers, reputation damage, and destruction of shareholder value.
The most obvious way to fill the AI Ethicist role is to hire one person with expertise in all the required areas and then make that person responsible for ensuring all the organization’s AI ethics issues get addressed. However, unless your business is just looking to “check the box” on AI ethics, there are at least two reasons why this approach won’t work.....the requirements of ethical AI often conflict with what AI developers and businesspeople would choose to do on their own (which is why an AI Ethicist is needed in the first place...the scope of AI ethics will likely outgrow that individual’s capabilities in the very near future as AI becomes increasingly sophisticated and important in business.