Thiruvananthapuram: In a significant reaffirmation of judicial principles, the High Court has issued a directive stating that artificial intelligence (AI) tools should not be used to issue judicial orders. The court emphasized that while technology can assist with routine tasks, the power and responsibility of rendering verdicts and directions must remain solely in the hands of human judges. This pronouncement serves as a timely reminder in an era of accelerating automation and AI integration into public institutions, including the legal system.
The court observed that some judges had begun relying excessively on AI-generated content, including drafts, templates, or suggestions, while preparing judicial orders. While not condemning the use of AI for research or clerical support, the court clarified that the ultimate reasoning, application of law, and delivery of orders must reflect the independent, conscious thought process of the presiding judge. Any abdication of this fundamental judicial function to machines, the court cautioned, would be detrimental to the sanctity of justice and the principle of fairness that underpins the legal system.
This directive came amid rising discussions on the role of artificial intelligence in India’s judiciary. Several courts across the country have begun experimenting with AI-based tools for translation, transcription, and case law analysis to ease the administrative burden. However, the High Court distinguished between these non-adjudicative uses and the act of deciding cases, which it said requires human faculties such as empathy, prudence, context-based interpretation, and moral judgment attributes that AI cannot authentically replicate.
The court further noted that excessive reliance on AI for decision-making may also risk algorithmic bias, data misinterpretation, or lack of accountability. Judicial orders are not mere outputs of data input and logic processing; they carry legal, emotional, and societal implications. Therefore, the authorship of such orders must unequivocally rest with the judges who are trained and entrusted to uphold constitutional values and human dignity.
In its instructions to subordinate courts, the High Court urged judicial officers to exercise restraint in using AI-generated language or conclusions, especially in final judgments and interim orders. Judges have been asked to ensure that every order reflects their individual understanding of the facts, appreciation of arguments, and application of legal principles. The court reiterated that the bench’s authority derives not from speed or efficiency but from the credibility of its reasoned decisions, made through deliberation and introspection.
This judgment also aligns with global concerns expressed by legal experts and human rights groups, who argue that the right to a fair trial includes the right to be heard and judged by a human being. As technology continues to reshape legal workflows, the court’s timely intervention establishes a necessary boundary embracing innovation without compromising the core values of the judiciary.
In summary, the High Court has drawn a clear line: while AI may enhance the efficiency of courts, it cannot and must not substitute human judgment in delivering justice.