AI Cannot Replace Human Conscience In Justice Delivery: Justice Vikram Nath

Supreme Court judge Justice Vikram Nath recently said that the future will test the balance between truthful information, media influence, and fairness in a technologically driven justice system.

“If the past century belonged to the struggle for free speech, perhaps the coming one will belong to the struggle for true speech — information that is accurate, ethical, and respectful of dignity. If the past century grappled with access to justice, the coming one may grapple with fairness in technologically driven justice. And if the past century debated the power of the press, the coming one will debate the power of algorithms. The struggle is never-ending”, he said.

Stressing that justice requires empathy and conscience, he added: “Law is not merely about efficiency; it is about justice, equity, and conscience. A judge is not an algorithm; a judge is a human being guided by constitutional morality, empathy, and lived experience. A machine cannot understand the anguish of a victim, the remorse of an accused, or the complexities of social context. Justice is not a product- it is a process, and in that process, dignity is non-negotiable. The question then arises: what should be the role of AI in the legal system? In my respectful view, the answer lies in treating AI as an aid, not as an arbiter. AI can support judges, lawyers, and litigants by enhancing access, reducing delays, and assisting in research. But the ultimate act of adjudication must remain a human function, guided by conscience and constitutional values.”

Speaking at a Seminar on Media, AI & Law organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Orissa High Court Bar Association in Cuttack, Justice Nath noted that artificial intelligence has already aided courts in areas such as e-filing, transcription and translation of judgments, but flagged concerns of algorithmic bias, lack of transparency and accountability, and privacy violations in AI use. “A machine may be efficient, but it is not immune to prejudice. A judgment without reasons is not a judgment at all,” he said.

Justice Nath noted that the European Union is working on an AI Act, UNESCO has issued ethical guidelines, and the United States has resisted predictive sentencing tools, and said India must develop its own safeguards rooted in constitutional values. He called for transparency requirements, audits to check bias, liability rules for AI generated errors, and robust data protection.

On the role of media, he emphasised that freedom of the press flows from Article 19(1)(a) but is subject to restrictions under Article 19(2). He stressed that the media is a watchdog but cannot become a judge. He warned that in the age of 24x7 television and social media, selective and out-of-context reporting of court proceedings risks undermining judicial independence and the presumption of innocence.

“Courts move deliberately in the pace in which they do, because justice demands reflection, balance, and fairness. Media and AI, on the other hand, operate in real time, often without pause for accuracy or accountability”, he said.

Justice Nath noted that remarks of Supreme Court judges in the Nupur Sharma case and the “India's Got Latent” controversy were circulated on social media, leading to criticism of the court despite the fact that relief was ultimately granted in both matters.

“we must not forget that criticism must be informed, constructive, and respectful of the boundaries of judicial independence. A line is crossed when commentary tends to scandalise or lower the authority of the courts. To top this all up, the icing on the cake is that sometimes influencers and social media accounts themselves engage in selective picking of arguments/discussions being made in the Court. They extract this byte, usually termed as clickbait, to draw greater number of views to generate revenue at the cost of reputation of our Courts”, he emphasised.

He said judges engage in dialogue as part of their role as sentinels on the qui vive, and commentary that misrepresents such exchanges erodes trust in institutions. “We have also come across instances where reporting has turned into parallel prosecution,” he said, adding that this undermines the right to a fair trial under Article 21.

He emphasised that ensuring accuracy, ethical reporting, and respect for privacy requires collaboration and self-regulation from both the media and the courts, which must safeguard free expression while upholding the integrity of justice.

“The road ahead, therefore, lies not in confrontation but in collaboration and self-regulation. There is a great need for the Media to evolve ethical codes that ensure accuracy, respect for privacy, and fairness in reporting. At the same time, courts must also remain alive to the realities of modern communication and develop doctrines that safeguard both free expression and fair trial. Ultimately, both institutions - the press and the judiciary - draw their legitimacy from public trust. If one loses credibility, the other is affected. It is in the interest of democracy that both move forward in mutual respect, ensuring that truth, and not noise, prevails”, he said.

On convergence of media, artificial intelligence, and law, Justice Nath noted, “Artificial intelligence, in turn, does not operate in a vacuum. It feeds on data- much of which is supplied by the media- and in turn influences what media shows us. Together, they create echo chambers that amplify certain narratives while muting others. The law must then navigate this reality: a reality where the boundary between truth and fabrication, fact and opinion, is increasingly porous”, he said.

He also pointed to the problem of deepfakes and misuse of personality rights, highlighting Delhi police action in the Rashmika Mandanna deepfake case and recent Delhi High Court orders protecting actors Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff. He said such misuse raises questions of truth, fair trials, and regulation in the digital age.

Justice Nath said that technological change must always be tested against Articles 19, 14 and 21. He outlined three pathways for the future: strengthening legal frameworks on data and AI, enhancing judicial preparedness and transparency in the use of technology, and collaborative responsibility among judiciary, media, the Bar and the tech community.

Justice Nath advised young lawyers to prepare template pleadings in cases involving AI misuse.

“The challenges as we have discussed are real therefore, you must be prepared to provide your clients with best possible counselling and legal assistance in Court. Therefore, draft template pleadings that: (1) describe the manipulation technique (face-swap, voice clone, text-to-speech), (2) annex forensic screenshots and hashes, (3) plead multi-ground relief (personality, defamation, passing off, IT), (4) seek dynamic injunctions, mirror-site blocking, and time-bound takedown directions, and (5) require the platform to disclose originator details subject to due process. The Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff orders are your precedents for expansive protection against AI misuse.”

He urged them to ensure transparency in their own reliance on AI tools, and remember that AI cannot replace humans in the courtroom. “AI can summarise 500 pages; it cannot sense the judge's eyebrow,” he remarked.

Concluding his address, he said media must reclaim its ethical centre, AI must be transparently regulated, and law must remain the vigilant guardian of constitutional values. Ending on a lighter note, he added: “If someday an AI does replace us in court, I only ask that it also stands in corridor queues and chases the registry for missing files.”