Artificial intelligence should be viewed as an enabler of judicial efficiency rather than a substitute for judges, as public confidence in courts depends upon the assurance that disputes are resolved through fair procedures and considered judgment, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya said during the presidential valedictory address at The AI-Driven Legal Ecosystem: Bench, Bar & Business in Transition, organised by ETLegalWorld in association with Microsoft and supported by the Bombay Bar Association on June 19.
Delivering the address, Chief Justice Upadhyaya said AI had “arrived to stay” but warned that the challenge is to develop governance frameworks that enable innovation while preserving the foundational values on which the legal system rests.
Drawing from his own experience as a lawyer and judge, the Chief Justice traced the legal profession’s technological evolution—from physical law libraries and typewriters to online databases, e-filing and virtual hearings—describing artificial intelligence as the next transformative phase in that journey.
“The objective cannot simply be technological adoption. The objective must be to ensure that technological innovation strengthens efficiency, improves access to justice, enhances regulatory compliance and promotes public confidence in legal institutions,” he said.
He cautioned, however, that issues relating to data protection, intellectual property, cyber security, competition law, consumer protection, algorithmic accountability and liability are becoming increasingly important. “Regulators across the world are examining how existing legal frameworks should respond to these developments. Consequently, artificial intelligence is influencing business both as a tool and as a subject of regulation,” he said.
Speaking on AI’s role in courts, He said artificial intelligence offers several opportunities in the field of judicial administration. AI-assisted tools are facilitating translation of judicial records and legal documents. They are assisting in transcription of proceedings; experiments with using AI in case management are also under consideration.
However, he made it clear that adjudication itself must remain a human function. “Responsibility for judicial decisions, however, must continue to rest with judges who are accountable to constitutional principles and legal norms,” he said.
He explains that the judicial function involves more than information processing. Judicial decision-making requires interpretation of law, evolution of competing arguments, appreciation of facts, assessment of credibility, balancing the rights and interests, the exercise of judgment in circumstances that are often complex and contested, and human sensitivity.
“The role of the lawyer will increasingly involve assessing the credibility of sources, confirming the authenticity of citations, examining the context of judicial decisions, and ensuring that legal propositions are supported by accurate authority,” he said.
He referred to instances where AI systems generated non-existent judicial precedents or incorrect legal principles, describing such “hallucinations” as a serious concern for the profession. “Such hallucinations present a serious concern in a profession where accuracy and reliability are of paramount importance,” he said.
“One of the most important skills for lawyers will be the ability to critically evaluate and verify the material produced by technological tools,” he said, adding that “The role of the lawyer will increasingly involve assessing the credibility of sources, confirming the authenticity of citations, examining the context of judicial decisions, and ensuring that legal propositions are supported by accurate authority.”
Summing up the responsibility of legal professionals, he offered a simple mantra: “Verify, verify, verify.”
He also said that legal education and professional training must adapt accordingly. Besides doctrinal knowledge, students must understand how AI systems function, where their limitations lie, and how their outputs should be evaluated. “They will also need stronger capacities in areas such as problem-solving, communication, negotiations and interdisciplinary analysis,” he said.
Addressing the corporate legal landscape, businesses are using AI-assisted systems to review contracts, identify compliance risks, analyze regulatory developments, monitor transactions and improve governance processes. These technologies can enhance efficiency and support more informed decision-making.
He noted that businesses are increasingly deploying AI to review contracts, identify compliance risks, monitor transactions and improve governance. At the same time, AI is generating fresh legal questions around data protection, cybersecurity, intellectual property, competition law, consumer protection and algorithmic accountability.
“Till this planet Earth is inhabited by humans, the human feelings, sense of art, sense of music, sense of poetry, and in the same breath, sense of justice will never lose relevance. So we as judges are never going to lose relevance,” he said.
