“Judges Are Extremely Cautious With AI; Judiciary Will Never Allow Machines To Override Justice”: CJI Surya Kant

Undercover Editor News Agency | Updated: 05 December 2025.

In a significant observation that reaffirms the judiciary’s cautious approach toward emerging technologies, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that Indian judges are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) with utmost restraint and responsibility.

The remarks came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought guidelines to regulate the alleged “unregulated” use of generative AI tools in court proceedings. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

“We Don’t Want AI To Overpower Judicial Decision-Making” – CJI

Countering the petitioner’s claim that AI use in Courts remains largely unregulated, the CJI firmly stated:

“There is no question of unregulated use by us. I, my brothers and sisters have spoken on this — we are using AI in a very careful manner. We don’t want AI or machine learning to overpower the judicial decision-making process.”

The Chief Justice highlighted that AI is merely a supporting tool and will never replace human wisdom, judicial reasoning, or the core values that guide the justice system.

Fake AI-Generated Judgments: Responsibility On Lawyers Too

Senior Advocate Anupam Lal Das, appearing for the petitioner Karthikeya Rawal, warned the Court about the growing problem of AI-generated fake precedents being cited by advocates.

Responding sharply, the CJI noted that such fake precedents likely surface only when lawyers themselves rely on unverified AI-generated content. He reminded the Bar that:

• Lawyers must perform due diligence before citing any case law.
• Relying on fictitious precedents violates professional ethics.
• Both sides — judiciary and the legal community — must remain alert to AI misuse.

Kerala High Court’s AI Policy Mentioned

The petitioner also referred to the Kerala High Court’s newly issued policy for responsible use of AI in district courts.

The CJI remarked:

“You are speaking as if we do not know what is happening in Kerala High Court.”

He added that the Supreme Court is already in communication with High Court leadership and noted that such policies require careful, multi-level consultations before implementation.

Petition Withdrawn After Court’s Remarks

After hearing the bench, the counsel informed the Court that they would like to withdraw the petition and instead place formal suggestions before the Supreme Court on its administrative side.

The bench allowed the withdrawal, recording:

“Senior counsel seeks permission to withdraw the matter and is permitted to withdraw this petition; however, the petitioner is allowed to submit the suggestions to us on the administrative side.”

Case Details

W.P.(C) No. 1041/2025

Petitioner: Karthikeya Rawal

Respondent: Union of India