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