Supreme Court Judge Justice Manmohan said that artificial intelligence could resolve nearly sixty percent of India’s litigation backlog if routine, low-stakes offences are automated, explaining that many such matters are simple, repetitive, and easily handled by AI systems
Justice Manmohan of the Supreme Court stated on Saturday that utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) could potentially eliminate over 60 percent of India’s litigation backlog if decisions related to routine, low-stakes offenses are delegated to automated systems.
He made these remarks during the keynote address at the India Law, AI and Tech Summit 2025, organized by Oak Bridge in Delhi.
Justice Manmohan emphasized that technology should alleviate judges from administrative tasks, enabling them to focus on more complex legal issues.
Also Read: Your Difficulty Is Mine, I Treat the Bar as My Family: CJI Surya Kant
He pointed out that a significant portion of India’s caseload consists of minor, repetitive cases that do not warrant detailed judicial scrutiny.
He identified specific cases suitable for AI-based decision-making, such as,
“Small ticket offenses, traffic challenges, check bouncing cases. They could be decided by AI because these are matters of routine and can be easily dealt with.”
He argued that transitioning these cases to AI-assisted processes would have a transformative effect on backlog reduction.
He added,
“If that were to happen more than 60 percent of our litigation would get resolved and the remaining infrastructure could focus on the core 40 percent of the litigation,”
Justice Manmohan also noted that AI could help aggregate thousands of similar cases, particularly in land acquisition disputes and mass filings, allowing courts to resolve entire groups of cases through a single judgment.
However, he cautioned about the real challenges posed by AI, such as inaccuracies in legal references, algorithmic bias, and privacy issues, which need to be addressed before widespread implementation.
He informed that the Supreme Court has initiated a pilot for an AI tool called SU-PACE, designed to read case files, extract pertinent issues, and identify relevant precedents for judges. He described this system as a digital research assistant, aimed at minimizing the time judges spend sorting through extensive paper records and filings.
He explained,
“It prepares a summary of the readings, the issues, and calls out the law… It will not give a judgment, but it highlights what is relevant for the judge to consider,”
Looking ahead, Justice Manmohan predicted a future with hybrid judicial models where technology manages routine and administrative tasks, permitting judges to focus on issues requiring complex thought, empathy, and constitutional sensitivity.
He remarked,
“The ultimate character of justice is not the algorithm, but the integrity, independence and intellect of the human judge,”
Other speakers at the summit’s opening session included Dr. Manoj Kumar, Additional Secretary at the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, and Dr. Shailesh V Haribhakti, along with senior lawyer and President of the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), Dr. Lalit Bhasin. Dr. Bhasin shared similar concerns regarding reliance on AI.
He recounted an interview exercise with young lawyers, saying,
“All drafts were identical… What does this indicate? It indicates that we have virtually become slaves to the technology, AI. There is very minimal application of mind, and that is a very dangerous course of action so far as this profession is concerned.”
He highlighted that although efficient tools can aid in the process, they do not address the root causes of case backlog and systemic issues.
He noted,
“But what about the disposal of the cases? In 2023-24 there were 5 crore cases pending. Due to this facilitation process, you see the number has gone much beyond 5 crores now,”
Also Read: We Judges Have a Very Miserable Life: CJI Surya Kant Highlights Importance of Sports
Addressing the reasons behind ongoing delays in litigation, Bhasin stated,
“We have too many laws. We have outdated laws. We have overlapping laws. We have ill-drafted laws. That is good for the legal profession but bad for the country, bad for the economy.”
He concluded with a caution regarding the limitations of technology in the legal field.
Dr. Bhasin said,
“Use it as a tool, but don’t become a slave to it. Yes, reliance on technology… is alright up to a certain extent, but it can never be a substitute for the human brain,”