Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant highlighted that AI can assist judges, lawyers, and citizens, but cannot replace the human element in justice. “Let AI guide, but judges and lawyers must be the final arbiters,” he said.
Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant emphasized that while Artificial Intelligence (AI) can assist judges, lawyers, and citizens, it cannot replace the essential human element in the justice system. He articulated that technology should serve as a guide, with humans being the ultimate decision-makers in delivering justice.
He stated,
“Artificial intelligence may assist in researching authorities, generating drafts, or highlighting inconsistencies, but it cannot perceive the tremor in a witness’s voice, the anguish behind a petition, or the moral weight of a decision. Let us be crystal clear: we are not replacing the lawyer or the judge, we are simply augmenting their reach and refining their capacity to serve. Let technology be the guide and the human govern,”
Justice Kant also raised concerns about an over-reliance on AI, noting that such tools can produce inaccuracies or reflect biases inherent in their training data.
Also Read: Collegium System Is the Soul of Judicial Independence: Justice Surya Kant
He stressed that human oversight is crucial, as lawyers and judges must validate AI outputs.
He remarked that while technology can be a powerful ally, the pursuit of justice remains fundamentally a human endeavor.
He asserted,
“The essence of our calling lies not in data or algorithms, but in conscience and compassion. The judge’s discernment, the advocate’s reasoning, the litigant’s dignity, and the empathy that animates every fair trial , these are the living fibres of justice that no machine can replicate,”
Justice Kant highlighted that the legal profession is at a “decisive moment” where it needs to balance technological advancements with the enduring human values that underpin justice. He cautioned that while data can inform decisions, it should never dictate them.
He emphasized the importance of inclusivity in technological reform, stating,
“If technology enables a villager to file a plea without travelling miles, if it ensures that a poor litigant is heard without delay, if it helps a court communicate its reasoning in a language that people understand then it has truly served its purpose.”
Delivering the keynote address on “Technology in the Aid of the Legal Profession – A Global Perspective” at the Bar Association of Sri Lanka’s annual law conference, Justice Kant described technology as a “force multiplier” that has revolutionized legal practice and justice administration.
He noted that the transformation began with the digitization of paperwork and has grown into a comprehensive ecosystem driven by AI, analytics, and automation. The critical question for the legal community is not whether to embrace technology, but how to do so responsibly.
He explained,
“It is not about replacing human judgment. It is about amplifying its reach, precision and purpose,”
He pointed out that innovations such as e-filing, digital registries, and online hearings have made the justice system more efficient and transparent.
Justice Kant also addressed the impact of technology on law students and scholars, highlighting how online resources and digital internships have made legal education more engaging and globally interconnected.
However, he warned of the risks associated with rapid technological adoption, identifying four key challenges: digital literacy gaps, data privacy, AI bias, and institutional resistance to change.
He stressed the importance of ensuring that all legal system participants keep pace with digital advancements, cautioning that a digital divide could exacerbate existing inequalities.
Urging investments in training and capacity building, he said,
“This digital divide risks exacerbating inequality: some legal actors may leap ahead, while many may be left behind,”
Justice Kant encouraged the legal fraternity to remain adaptable and willing to learn as new tools reshape justice delivery, emphasizing that technology should enhance, not replace, core values.
He stated,
“New models will emerge, systems will evolve, and challenges will multiply. Our duty is to remain learners, open, adaptive, reflective and ready to embrace what aids in the pursuit of justice and discard what does not. For, at the end of the day, technology may illuminate the path – but it is humanity that must lead the way.”
Addressing privacy concerns, he highlighted the necessity for lawyers to protect client confidentiality in a data-driven landscape.
He reiterated that,
“Lawyers deal in trust and therefore the confidentiality, privilege, data integrity, and cybersecurity of their clients must remain sacrosanct.”
Justice Kant urged collaboration among bar associations and judiciaries in South Asia to establish ethical and technological standards. He proposed forming a “legal tech consortium” comprising judges, practitioners, academics, and technologists to share best practices and training programs across jurisdictions.
He noted that India’s experiences with e-courts and AI-assisted tools could provide valuable insights for neighboring countries like Sri Lanka. He also advocated for evolving legal education to prepare future lawyers for a technology-driven landscape, suggesting that law schools should incorporate courses on data science, AI ethics, and computational law.
In conclusion, Justice Kant encouraged the legal community to actively shape the digital transition rather than resist it.
He said,
“We can resist technology and risk stagnation, or we can shape and guide it, embedding our legal and ethical values within its design, so that it strengthens, not supplants, justice,”