{"id":1767,"date":"2025-12-05T14:57:11","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T09:27:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/?p=1767"},"modified":"2025-12-16T02:38:39","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T21:08:39","slug":"judges-are-extremely-cautious-with-ai-judiciary-will-never-allow-machines-to-override-justice-cji-surya-kant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/judges-are-extremely-cautious-with-ai-judiciary-will-never-allow-machines-to-override-justice-cji-surya-kant\/","title":{"rendered":"Judges Are Extremely Cautious With AI; Judiciary Will Never Allow Machines To Override Justice\u201d: CJI Surya Kant"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

\u201cJudges Are Extremely Cautious With AI; Judiciary Will Never Allow Machines To Override Justice\u201d: CJI Surya Kant<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\u201cJudges\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Undercover Editor News Agency | Updated: 05 December 2025<\/strong>.<\/h2>\n\n

In a significant observation that reaffirms the judiciary\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n

The remarks came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought guidelines to regulate the alleged \u201cunregulated\u201d use of generative AI tools in court proceedings. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

\u201cWe Don\u2019t Want AI To Overpower Judicial Decision-Making\u201d \u2013 CJI<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Countering the petitioner\u2019s claim that AI use in Courts remains largely unregulated, the CJI firmly stated:<\/p>\n\n

\u201cThere is no question of unregulated use by us. I, my brothers and sisters have spoken on this \u2014 we are using AI in a very careful manner. We don\u2019t want AI or machine learning to overpower the judicial decision-making process.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n

Fake AI-Generated Judgments: Responsibility On Lawyers Too<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n

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:<\/p>\n\n

    \n
  • Lawyers must perform due diligence before citing any case law.<\/li>\n\n
  • Relying on fictitious precedents violates professional ethics.<\/li>\n\n
  • Both sides \u2014 judiciary and the legal community \u2014 must remain alert to AI misuse.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n

    Kerala High Court\u2019s AI Policy Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    The petitioner also referred to the Kerala High Court\u2019s newly issued policy for responsible use of AI in district courts.<\/p>\n\n

    The CJI remarked:<\/p>\n\n

    \u201cYou are speaking as if we do not know what is happening in Kerala High Court.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n

    Petition Withdrawn After Court\u2019s Remarks<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n

    The bench allowed the withdrawal, recording:<\/p>\n\n

    \u201cSenior 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    Case Details<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    W.P.(C) No.<\/strong> 1041\/2025<\/p>\n\n

    Petitioner:<\/strong> Karthikeya Rawal<\/p>\n\n

    Respondent:<\/strong> Union of India<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \u201cJudges Are Extremely Cautious With AI; Judiciary Will Never Allow Machines To Override Justice\u201d: CJI Surya Kant Undercover Editor News Agency | Updated: 05 December 2025. In a significant observation that reaffirms the judiciary\u2019s 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 \u201cunregulated\u201d use of generative AI tools in court proceedings. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. \u201cWe Don\u2019t Want AI To Overpower Judicial Decision-Making\u201d \u2013 CJI Countering the petitioner\u2019s claim that AI use in Courts remains largely unregulated, the CJI firmly stated: \u201cThere is no question of unregulated use by us. I, my brothers and sisters have spoken on this \u2014 we are using AI in a very careful manner. We don\u2019t want AI or machine learning to overpower the judicial decision-making process.\u201d 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: Kerala High Court\u2019s AI Policy Mentioned The petitioner also referred to the Kerala High Court\u2019s newly issued policy for responsible use of AI in district courts. The CJI remarked: \u201cYou are speaking as if we do not know what is happening in Kerala High Court.\u201d 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\u2019s 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: \u201cSenior 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.\u201d Case Details W.P.(C) No. 1041\/2025 Petitioner: Karthikeya Rawal Respondent: Union of India<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1769,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"_eb_attr":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[290,291],"tags":[293,292,179,85],"class_list":["post-1767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-technology-law","category-judiciary","tag-a-fake-judgments","tag-ai-in-judiciary","tag-supremecourt","tag-undercovereditor-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1767"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1767\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1912,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1767\/revisions\/1912"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1769"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}