Technology and the Bench: Can AI Ever Replace a Judge?

By Niyati Mehdiratta

When you hear the word “courtroom”, the first things that come to mind are: a judge in a black robe, a jury, and a gavel. But with the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, all this could be reduced to a mere software.

No more judges, no more objections, and worst of all, no more humanity.

You might believe that AI can make the process more efficient, cheap and fair. It can quickly review case histories, apply legal principles, and reduce delays caused by heavy workloads. However, believing that AI can fully replace a judge is misunderstanding the burden on a judge.

 Legal Decisions are actions taken by judges and courts to resolve conflicts, interpret legislation, and shape future legal developments. Proper interpretation requires understanding along with the context and credibility. Courts follow precedent through the principle of stare decisis to keep the law consistent and fair, but they also adapt and reform as people’s values and society change.

Judging broader policy impacts involves looking beyond the immediate outcome of a case to consider its long-term effects on society and governance. Acknowledging judicial philosophies means accepting that every judge brings different views shaped by their experiences. Responsiveness to the legal culture and valued norms of the society deals with governing judicial decisions shaped by norms, ethics, and the public’s changing expectations to safeguard the law’s relevance, fairness, and the trust of the society.

These are actions and tasks that demand a deep level of understanding and emotions along with a social context and moral accountability – all of which are beyond the reach of AI.

When we talk of accountability, it is a major concern with AI systems. While human judges can be held responsible for their actions, AI cannot. If an AI judge makes an error, who would you blame? The programmer? The company? The algorithm? And if no one is transparently accountable, then where does that leave the judicial system?

On the other hand, it is important to acknowledge the fact that when technology is used wisely, it can improve the justice system in multiple ways. AI can automate repetitive tasks like legal research, document review, and contract analysis for Judges and lawyers. It can be used in court proceedings by the audience, the accused and even the advocates for looking up, reading, and understanding legal jargon, bills, laws, rules, and acts. Furthermore, AI can help stenographers and Judges to record, analyse and organise large amounts of data easily and accurately. It also allows the comparison between interstate variations in laws and regulations, while also serving as a useful tool in matters of international importance such as trade disputes, tariff policies, arms trade regulations, and cross-border business agreements.

This allows judges to focus on more complex reasoning and human judgment that cases require. When used effectively, AI can ease the burden on courts, giving judges the chance to fully engage with the lives and struggles of the people who come before them. 

 Judicial systems in many countries like China, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom have already introduced virtual hearings, automatic scheduling, and AI-driven research. These innovations have lessened delays and made justice accessible, especially in remote areas. In fact, as per a 2023 report by the World Bank, countries that implemented virtual hearings during the pandemic saw a 40% increase in case resolution speed.

Rather than completely replacing the bench, AI can back it up by standing behind judges in a system overwhelmed by not just 50 million pending cases in India, as reported by the National Judicial Data Grid, but by the lives and stories waiting for justice.

Still, even with its positives, AI still is limited. Algorithms lack human values and could carry hidden biases depending on the developers and the datasets upon which the system is trained. While AI could help us  in understanding interstate laws or resolving international disagreements, it cannot manage the political nuances , ethical issues, and cultural differences that such matters require. A machine can process evidence, but it cannot understand human suffering or the moral weight of decisions. Blindly trusting AI in matters of justice risks reducing people to data points, and judgments to calculations. Real justice requires empathy, discretion, and accountability - qualities rooted in humanity. The danger lies not in using AI, but completely replacing the bench with it

In the end, justice is not just about rules and regulations, it’s about the people. Justice needs empathy, something no algorithm can feel.

As former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said,“Concepts of justice must have hands and feet— they must live in the minds and hearts of people.”

 AI may be a form of assistance, but it is humanity that must remain at the heart of the judicial system.

By Niyati Mehdiratta