The Hall of Justice operates solely
based on pieces of evidence and allows no opportunity for biases in its
working. However, according to sources, 6 per cent of the convictions
are false. A significant reason for this could be the inclinations caused by
humans while assessing these attestations. There are a lot of theories
which suggest the replacement of human judges by robots. They are also
upheld by the unvarnished truth that machines would make evidence-based
verdicts rather than subjective. On the contrary, critics challenge the
ethicality of Artificially Intelligent robots and believe that its introduction
in courtrooms could be disastrous. We have to discuss the applications
of Artificial Intelligence in the judicial system of India, the proper way of120
introducing it, and the shortcomings and the advantages of it.
Currently, the Supreme Court of
India is using Artificial Intelligence140 for translating its judgements into
several vernacular languages for a mobile application. However, the Chief
Justice of India is fascinated160 by Artificial Intelligence and
believes that it could be of significant use in the judicial system. He
thinks Artificial Intelligence can prevent the delay in the delivery of justice
by working on the repetitive, mathematical and mechanical parts of the
judgments. Regardless of the serviceability offered by Artificial
Intelligence, the Chief Justice of India made it explicit that Artificial
Intelligence will not replace human discretion. He claimed that Artificial
Intelligence can only aid the proceedings but cannot take important decisions. 240
We know that the Government of India is interested in the
deployment of Artificial Intelligence in the judiciary, but let us
understand how they can be installed in the judiciary of the world's
largest democracy. Artificial Intelligence, like in280 numerous other
fields, has made its entry into the courtrooms. The Correctional Offender
Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions is a practical example of Artificial
Intelligence in use. The criminal judges of some States use this to
predict the defendant's likelihood320 to offend. This technique provides a
score from 1 to 10 to the defendants on 137 factors like gender, and past
criminal records. However, the accuracy of this technique can be
questioned as it is prone to machine biases while dealing360
with white and black Americans.
Likewise, India can also make
use of Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary besides merely translating
verdicts. One application of Artificial Intelligence in the Indian courtrooms
could be the replacement of traditional court reporters. These reporters need
to hear different types of court proceedings and make their respective transcripts.
However, the hectic job leads to typing420 errors in some transcripts. Advanced
voice recognition softwares can write error-free transcripts very rapidly and
save a lot of time in the courtroom. Artificial Intelligence can provide its
contribution to the judicial process by playing an advisory role. It can help
in assessing the facts and thereby providing a statement for the judge to
consider. Artificial Intelligence can draw data from480 previous cases, as
mentioned by the Chief Justice of India, and reduce the human task of reading
different laws. Emotionally Intelligent robots can be present in the court to
report facial expressions and body language of the accused in criminal cases.
The judge would still have the power to determine whether to consider the
statement or to deny it altogether.
From the previous example of Offender
Management Profiling, it can be ascertained that Artificial Intelligence
softwares are still not560 very accurate in passing predetermined
judgements. If Artificial Intelligence is given the power to pass
the final verdict unanimously, many innocent people would be punished,
even for a crime that they are unlikely to do. There would be no hope
for600
mercy, as machines will not work on emotions. Artificial Intelligence would
penalise people based on their past and current records. This would not
allow future improvement in an individual's mindset. Artificial Intelligence
programmes are computers after all, which work on640 a given code. This
leaves room for immoral manipulations. Now, imagine the supreme judicial power
and the decision of a person's life rest with Artificial Intelligence
softwares. It would be a catastrophe. Considering the probability that
Artificial Intelligence will pose a fundamental threat of autonomy, it needs
to have some sort of human intervention. There has to be a700
system to ensure that the goals of Artificial Intelligence coincide with human
goals. The idea behind this is to safeguard the720 final power of
decision making with humans.
Our Constitution delineates
both the powers and responsibilities of institutions and those who govern them.
This institutional edifice must be protected. If not, those manning the
institutions, by their actions, are likely to cater to their enervation
and eventual decimation. Today, we are seeing that happening before our eyes.
We are ourselves to blame for not raising our voice and calling to attention
the malaise that has set in. Our Fundamental Rights are800
set out in Part-Ill of the Constitution. Under certain circumstances,
they are subject to legislative curtailment. Equality before the law is
a fundamental constitutional premise, prohibiting discrimination on
grounds of race, caste, creed, religion, place of birth and sex, subject840
to the caveat that the disadvantaged may be empowered by acts of
positive discrimination. Other rights, fundamental to our existence, including
freedom of speech, freedom to form associations, to move throughout the territory
of India along with the right to carry on any profession, trade or
business, are subject to regulation. They need to be protected from unreasonable
legislative and executive interference.
Today, our lament is that
constitutional courts obliged to uphold these rights have, in recent years,
often been lethargic and occasionally remiss in protecting
citizens from legislative and executive excesses. Any matter before the court,
apart from pure personal inter-party disputes, involves individuals and
the State. We can assume that in that equation, the State represents power and960
the aggrieved individual is relatively powerless. In this context, the
largest litigant in this country is the State, as also980
the most powerful. The role of a court in deciding such disputes must not
just be stated but assessed in the context of its performance in recent
years. There is no point in having a judiciary in which the
judges do not have a liberal mindset. A judge with a conservative
disposition is acceptable but not an illiberal judge. Such a judge should
not find a place at least in our constitutional courts. A judge with
a statist mindset ends up helping the powerful and failing to protect
the weak. This does not mean that individuals should be protected
despite1080
their open flouting of the law. It only means that courts should scrutinize the
exercise of power by the State on the touchstone of
reasonableness, and that the extent of its exercise of power is
proportionate to the outcome sought1120 to be achieved. The court must not
allow it to be misused to cripple individual freedoms.
A judge who accepts statements by
the State without adequate scrutiny does a disservice to his oath of office.
The actions of the powerful must be scrutinized to ensure compliance with laws
that are reasonable. An unreasonable law upheld by the court itself amounts to
denigrating the freedoms we cherish. Laws that presume the guilt of a person,
that unfairly shift the burden of1200 proof, that prohibit the grant of bail
unless the court believes the person prosecuted is innocent, are laws that are
ex-facie unreasonable. They need to be scrutinized. Executive actions misusing
provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to target students and
those who agitate against government policies should be frowned upon. The
constitutionality of laws and actions to prosecute for1260 sedition our young,
who have no means or power to overthrow the established government, needs to be
adjudicated without delay. 1280 Such laws are being openly misused.
How else can one justify the existence of constitutional courts which are
obliged to protect the freedoms that we cherish?
Constitutional lethargy witnessed
in recent years in not deciding matters of great moment with alacrity is
another matter of concern. Petitions challenging the demonetization
decision have not been taken up till date. The challenge to the constitutional
validity of electoral bonds, through which political parties are funded, is
lying in slumber. The absence of its constitutional scrutiny, in fact, changes
equations of power in a democracy threatened by an oligarchic set-up. The
decision of enforcing a sudden lockdown, without adequate notice, in response
to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic left millions of1400
hapless migrants stranded. The nation witnessed tragic images still etched in
our minds. The court should have immediately ensured that the mandate of the
law to provide migrants with basic amenities was adhered to. A court that
chooses to accept1440 the statements made by the State at
face value, allows the powerful to act arbitrarily, without accountability.
The second wave of the pandemic has
shown our State structures to be callous and insensitive. The virus has entered
almost every home and the State is clueless and totally unprepared. Hundreds
of thousands of people are gasping for oxygen for survival. Many have succumbed
to this pandemic. Floating bodies, heart-breaking stories and the
accompanying mayhem have made us numb. The Election Commission has much to
answer for; so has the Executive. Only the courts can provide oxygen to the
system to make the Government and institutions and those who
man them accountable. That is what the courts are meant for. 1558
