Hyderabad, March 14 When used intelligently, AI may save time and make some aspects of legal work more manageable, but it cannot replace the trained mind of a lawyer, the ethical responsibility of a court officer, or the disciplined judgment required of a judge, said Supreme Court Judge, Justice Vikram Nath, on Saturday.
Addressing a conference here, Justice Nath further said that technology can help draft a note, but it cannot be used to invent the law; at the same time, the misuse of AI cannot lead the judicial system to the extreme of refusing to engage with it altogether.
Expressing concerns over instances where AI-generated material has been used carelessly, even in the Supreme Court, including references to non-existent citations and authorities, Justice Nath said that false citations are not merely technical mistakes; they strike at the integrity of legal submissions and the credibility of the adjudicatory process itself.
"However, a tool must remain a tool. It cannot replace the trained mind of a lawyer, the ethical responsibility of a court officer, or the disciplined judgment required of a judge," said Justice Nath.
"Technology may help draft a note, but it cannot be used to invent the law. At the same time, the misuse of AI cannot lead us to the extreme of refusing to engage with it altogether. The solution lies in informed use, ethical discipline, and professional standards. We must learn how to use these tools efficiently, carefully, and with full awareness of their limitations," he said.
Therefore, the challenges are real, as technology can widen access, but it can also deepen exclusion. Though it can increase transparency, it can also encourage distortion, he said.
Advanced technologies and tools can assist legal work, but they can also create new forms of carelessness. It can help respond to crime and, at the same time, become the means through which new crimes are committed, the SC judge said.
"That is the paradox of our time, but it is also the responsibility of our institutions to respond to this paradox with wisdom. Our approach, therefore, must be one of principled adaptation. We must not reject technology simply because it is new. We must not accept it blindly simply because it is efficient," he said.
The future of the justice system will not be secured merely by digitizing procedures. It will be secured by ensuring that technology remains anchored to the foundational ideals of the legal system, the judge said.
The rule of law ultimately depends not on the sophistication of the tools being used, but on the soundness of the institutions and the integrity of those who serve within them, he added.