NEW DELHI: Supreme Court’s most senior judge, Justice Vikram Nath, on Sunday said artificial intelligence could at best be a facilitator for the justice delivery system but could never replace the core task – writing judgments – which would always remain with judges.Speaking on ‘Challenges, innovations and role of AI in judicial governance’ at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s first national conference in Bengaluru, Justice Nath said, “AI can be used as a tool to augment the judicial system, but it cannot replace the judgment or judges’ minds as to what is to be decided.” Justice Nath said, “There can be no fixed data set in millions of cases dealt by courts. Take, for example, matrimonial cases, settlement of commercial cases, balancing equities – the court can understand the nuances of each case, which is factually different from the other, by reading papers and hearing the counsel. Judges alone know how to strike a balance in family partition suits.”He added, “AI cannot decide cases involving constitutional issues. There are innumerable complexities in criminal cases – how to appreciate the evidence, when to grant bail; in the same FIR there can be 10 accused, court may grant bail to nine but deny one. AI can’t deal with all these. AI is there to help us in several aspects – collate data, categorise cases, translations etc. But the judgment will remain with judges only.“Justice Nath also commended the initiative taken by SCBA president Vikas Singh on the conference.SC judge A G Masih said, “AI is not here to replace lawyers and judges. Data-driven intelligence cannot replace human conscience. The act of the courts rests on public faith to deliver justice by carefully balancing rights and liabilities and undertaking an assessment of factual circumstances with a human heart. Feelings cannot be replicated by AI, which can facilitate judicial activities but cannot substitute them.“The judge said there seemed to be a need to institutionalise guidelines for court technology and, perhaps, create a judicial-tech oversight board to maintain and check AI tools for bias and to review an automated draft. Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya said hallucination was implicit in mankind and mankind made AI. Therefore, hallucination was also implicit in AI and it was that which made it dangerous for the judiciary as it presented case law and logic that was non-existent or imaginary, he said.Delhi HC Chief Justice D K Upadhyay brought up the use of AI-assisted judgment drafting software in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, the UK, the UAE and China. “Collectively, AI is increasingly integrated in multiple domains of judicial governance from administrative efficiency to substantive support functions, while simultaneously raising important questions about accountability, fairness and limits of automation in the judicial system,” he said.Justice Upadhyay added, “AI-manipulated images, deepfakes deployed maliciously undermine the integrity of evidence and adversely impact administration of justice. Courts may have to re-examine the traditional reliance on photographs and videos… Burden on parties to establish authenticity will increase and the judiciary would have to rely more on forensic tests of such evidence.”