On Tuesday, Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Karol cautioned that artificial intelligence cannot replace the human foundation of the justice delivery system, even as AI tools rapidly make their way into courtrooms, legal drafting, and litigation practice. Speaking at a workshop on the “Rational Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Ecosystem” organised at the Delhi High Court, Justice Karol said AI must function only as an aid to lawyers and judges, and not as a replacement for human reasoning, ethics, discipline, or empathy. His remarks come at a time when AI-driven research and automated drafting tools are increasingly reshaping legal practice across the country.
The workshop, held at the Delhi High Court, brought together judges, senior advocates, legal professionals, and technology experts to examine the growing use of artificial intelligence within the legal system. While recognising AI’s potential to improve legal research, drafting, and court administration, Justice Karol cautioned against excessive dependence on technology and stressed the need for responsible use. He observed that AI could help young lawyers gain access to research and drafting resources that were once largely available only to bigger law firms. During the discussions, Delhi High Court judge Justice Vivek Chaudhary also flagged concerns surrounding AI “hallucinations”, confidentiality, jurisdictional limitations, and data protection, warning that AI-generated material must always be verified by human professionals before being relied upon in court.
Emphasising the irreplaceable human dimension of adjudication, Justice Karol remarked, “AI is a tool and no more,” adding that “Behind every file is a human being. Compassion will not come from AI.” Justice Chaudhary similarly pointed out that artificial intelligence merely functions on predictive probability and cannot independently understand justice or context. Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur also urged lawyers not to upload confidential client material onto AI platforms and stressed the need for independent scrutiny of AI-assisted outputs. The discussions ultimately centred on balancing technological advancement with professional responsibility and constitutional values within the legal system.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
