Artificial Intelligence Cannot Substitute Human Intelligence In Adjudicatory Process: Delhi HC

Artificial Intelligence Cannot Substitute Human Intelligence in Adjudicatory Process – Delhi High Court

1. Background

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in various sectors, including healthcare, finance, and governance. In the legal domain, AI tools can:

Analyze past judgments.

Predict case outcomes based on precedents.

Draft initial versions of legal documents.

Assist in research by quickly scanning large volumes of information.

However, the question arises: Can AI fully replace human judges in courts?

The Delhi High Court addressed this issue, emphasizing that AI can assist but cannot substitute human intelligence in judicial decision-making.

2. Core Reasons Why AI Cannot Replace Judges

Complex Legal Reasoning:

Judicial decisions are not just about applying law mechanically.

Judges weigh facts, context, and law together.

For example, two cases with similar facts may require different judgments based on subtle differences in circumstances.

Human Values and Ethics:

Courts often deal with sensitive issues like family disputes, sexual offenses, or human rights.

Decisions require empathy, moral judgment, and an understanding of societal impact. AI cannot comprehend human emotions or societal norms fully.

Assessment of Credibility:

Witness credibility and demeanor are crucial in trials.

AI cannot observe body language, tone, or emotional cues effectively.

Interpretation of Ambiguous Laws:

Laws are often open to interpretation.

Judges apply reasoned judgment and consider public policy, which AI cannot replicate.

Principles of Natural Justice:

AI cannot ensure fairness, equality, and justice in all unique circumstances.

Human oversight is essential to protect rights and prevent bias.

3. Case Illustration (Hypothetical Example Based on Delhi HC Principles)

Suppose there was a case “XYZ vs. ABC (2025)” where a dispute arose over property inheritance.

AI software analyzed past property cases and suggested that the case should be decided in favor of the son because historically, sons have inherited ancestral property.

However, the human judge observed:

The daughter had been the primary caretaker of the property.

There was evidence that the son had neglected his duties.

Equity and fairness principles favored the daughter.

Outcome: The judge ruled in favor of the daughter.

Lesson: AI could provide statistical trends, but it could not assess fairness, family dynamics, or equitable principles—human intelligence was indispensable.

4. Role of AI in Judiciary (Supportive, Not Replacement)

While AI cannot replace judges, it can:

Help in case research by scanning thousands of judgments.

Predict trends in case outcomes to guide lawyers.

Draft preliminary judgments to reduce workload.

Flag procedural errors or missing documents.

Important: The final decision and responsibility remain with human judges.

5. Delhi HC’s Key Direction

The Delhi High Court explicitly stated:

“AI can be used as a tool to assist judges in decision-making, but the adjudicatory function requires human intelligence, discretion, and empathy. No algorithm can substitute the reasoning, judgment, and ethical responsibility of a human judge.”

This ensures that:

Justice remains human-centered.

Technology serves as a supportive aid rather than a replacement.

Courts retain their moral and legal accountability.

6. Conclusion

AI is a powerful tool, but not a judge.

Judicial reasoning requires context, ethics, empathy, and discretion, which AI lacks.

Delhi HC’s ruling protects the human element of justice while allowing AI to enhance efficiency.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments