“What legacy will i leave?” The imagery that CJI DYC put it in our minds can result in a reflection, probably the only time when a man at the pinnacle of our judicial system will ever be seen introspecting. For years, courts have been synonymous with delays, echoing the famous line “Tareekh pe tareekh, tareekh pe tareekh, milti rahi hai, lekin insaaf nahi mila, milta hai toh sirf tareekh…” DYC was looking to break the chain by embracing technology and artificial intelligence that could explore or revolutionise how the judiciary functions. His time in office has been highlighted by major projects to digitise court procedures, an issue close to his heart, reflecting his belief that ‘the era of maintaining the status quo is behind us; we need evolution’ within our profession.
In recent years, DYC has been one of the most transformational arriving at the helm of the judiciary in India. His appointment comes at a crucial time as his leadership coincided with the apex court grappling over rising case pendency, delayed justice and the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. Recognising this urgent need for change, the DYC has pivoted technology to be a linchpin of his judicial reforms. Several initiatives have been introduced to update or modernise the court operations. One of the key AI initiative use cases has been in categorising cases to streamline or improve case management and clear backlogs. It has to be dealt with effectively and expeditiously by a system, so that the resources of those holding power or authority are efficiently utilised for delivery of speedy justice. This initiative significantly enhances accessibility for non-English speakers, making the judicial process more inclusive. Along with the vision of bringing in AI, DYC aims to include technological reforms like e-filing systems that are operational round-the-clock and adopting virtual courts and digital filing systems played a crucial role in this transformation. Adopting virtual courts and digital filing systems were key components in the results between then and now. These were designed to make case management much more efficient and reduced the need for paper files, which in turn helped reduce delays. An important example has been its use of tools such as the Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency, which have helped judges automate tasks like case sorting and evidence management. This has been crucial in addressing significant amounts of data effectively, which we have witnessed even in Md Zakir Hussain v. State of Manipur. Justice Guneshwar Sharma, during a hearing, said he was taking assistance from artificial intelligence tools in managing the service-related complex issues.
DYC also said it was crucial to continue hybrid hearing systems after COVID-19. While, on the one hand, it has democratised access to justice by enabling litigants and lawyers from all across the country to participate in proceedings without experiencing geographical barriers, it also aims at reducing delays and making legal processes more efficient. Similarly, the e-Courts project and digital libraries provide equal access to legal resources to lawyers and the public at large without any financial burden. As revolutionary as these advancements were, they came with essential questions about security and what is discovered soon to be a clash of accessibility. However, DYC acknowledged that AI could introduce biases if not properly managed and could benefit only those who had better access to technology, thus potentially widening existing inequalities. This has not been without controversies either with the AI in judiciary. Conversely, concerns against the full-on adoption of AI exist, with critics claiming that automation could undermine the nuanced role of human intuitive judgment, fears, particularly in matters such as ethical decisions and sentencing. There is also a significant apprehension around bias in AI systems; after all, AIs algorithms will learn from societal biases.
Despite assurances from CJI DYC about judicial oversight, the risk remains that biased algorithms could distort justice outcomes. One of the major issues is the digital divide, which poses challenges like smaller courts, older lawyers and individuals from rural areas who may struggle to adapt to these technological changes; some in rural areas never saw a laptop. We have also seen the live streaming of court proceedings while enhancing transparency has led to unintended consequences like we have seen the trend that social media can sensationalise judicial statements that detract from the serious nature of legal discourse.
Can AI ever replace the human empathy? This question touches upon deeper concerns about the essence of justice itself. Although technology can streamline the process and reduce delays but in no way could justice become a purely mechanical process. Technology often causes dehumanisation due to the differing structures between humans and machines, as Michel Foucault famously discussed in his works on power and systems and how power structures can be embedded in systems, technology can sometimes lead to dehumanisation if not kept in check by human discretion. Although DYC, stressed that AI need only be an help to judges instead of a substitute for them. He always called for judicial supervision on AI processes and ensured that human discretion be the cornerstone of ethical or constitutional decisions. In doing so, he kept the judiciary rooted in the values of compassion and fairness, ensuring that technology integration never compromised these principles.
DYC may be remembered for successfully negotiating the modernisation of a judiciary, while remaining true to its core principles. Though our judiciary keeps transforming, his time will be seen as the new era which kept both automated justice and human justice alive. How much he will be remembered as the Chief Justice who effectively reconciled tradition and technology would, of course, depend on how these reforms set precedence in years to follow. As the baton now passes to Justice Sanjeev Khanna, who will be appointed as the 51st Chief Justice of India. He will inherit a judiciary at a critical juncture, with opportunities an ahead. Will Khanna Ji continue the digital transformation or chart a new path?
Under DYC’s tenure, the agency ushered in dramatic overhauls, from artificial intelligence processing of data to hybrid hearings intended to hasten justice. Yet, as with any technological overhaul, it has not been without challenges and criticism. The balance between tradition and innovation remains delicate, leaving us to ask, has his legacy truly overcome the “tareekh pe tareekh” dilemma, or is the battle for timely justice far from over?
Tushar V Sharma, Assistant Professor (Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad) & Doctoral Fellow (Jindal Global Law School)
