AI Cannot Replace Human Intelligence in Justice: Justice Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Judge Justice Vikram Nath on Saturday stressed that artificial intelligence (AI) can support legal processes but can never replace human intelligence in delivering justice.

Speaking at a session on “Arbitration 2.0: Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technologies to Enhance the Efficiency of Arbitration” during the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025, Justice Nath said:

“Technology can help us, but it cannot take over human judgment. Justice is ultimately human—it requires fairness, empathy, and conscience, things machines do not have.”

The event was organised by the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, and the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The panel also featured Madras High Court Judge Justice N Anand Venkatesh, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, independent arbitrator Mark Dempsey SC, and Barrister Tim Lord KC.

Justice Nath recalled how arbitration was introduced as a quicker alternative to lengthy court trials, evolving from piles of paper documents to digital filings and online hearings. He noted that AI could further speed up processes—“If arbitration was meant to save time, AI has the power to redefine what time even means in dispute resolution.”

He highlighted global practices such as the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ rule that arbitrators must disclose if they use AI, and Singapore’s Gateway Platform for digitised case management. In India, the Supreme Court has already experimented with AI through real-time transcription in Constitution Bench hearings, translation of judgments into regional languages, and the SUPACE tool for legal research.

“These show us how technology can strengthen justice delivery. But it must work within limits. While AI can make our system sharper and faster, the conscience of justice (fairness and empathy) remains purely human,” he observed.

Justice Nath also warned that misuse of AI could weaken trust in arbitration, citing a California case where an arbitral award was questioned because the arbitrator allegedly relied on AI in drafting parts of the decision.

Justice Venkatesh added that AI could prepare case timelines, identify evidence gaps, and test arguments, making processes more efficient. However, he cautioned that as AI moves from being a tool to an active participant, it raises serious concerns about its role in decision-making.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta too flagged the dangers of excessive reliance on AI, pointing out risks of fabricated judgments and algorithmic bias.