COURTGPT AND THE CONSTITUTION: CAN AI TRULY DELIVER JUSTICE?
- SANGAMITHRA S M
- Oct 8, 2025
- 2 min read
Updated: Oct 17, 2025
Artificial Intelligence is entering every aspect of our lives, and now it has set its sights on the courtroom. Yes, ofcourse the idea of CourtGPT sounds futuristic and efficient, but can a machine ever uphold the spirit of justice promised by our Constitution?
The Idea of CourtGPT
CourtGPT represents the possibility of using AI to help judges, or even deliver decisions, by analysing laws, precedents, and arguments. For a country like India where there are more than 4.7 crore pending cases across various levels of the judiciary this solution is quite tempting. Imagine verdicts delivered in seconds, long backlogs cleared, and justice becoming more accessible. But however its just verdicts delivered and not necessarily justice. Speed is not the same as justice, and that is where the debate begins.
When the Constitution Meets Code
Our Constitution is built on values such as equality before law, fairness in process, the right to liberty, and so on. Justice in India is not just about applying rules blindly, it is about applying them with empathy, reasoning and understanding. To keep in mind the origin, need and evolution of any law, is the effective way to apply it.
It is of no doubt that AI brings efficiency, however it also leads to unchecked issues threatening multitude of constitutional safeguards such as equality under Article 14, free speech under Article 19, and privacy under Article 21. An AI system, no matter how advanced, cannot “feel” the human stories behind a case.
If a flawed algorithm denies someone their rights, the major question is- who will be held accountable? Machines cannot carry constitutional responsibility that humans must.
The Danger of Biased Data:
The CourtGPT is said to learn from past judgments and data fed into it. The developer community thinks that data-driven decision making is good, and algorithms are neutral. However, they fail to recognize the fact that the existing data may have biases, which may have gotten reinforced over time. If an AI is birthed through or continues on such an algorithm, then any result it produces will result in the ultimate doom of justice.
The Problem of the Black Box
One of the scariest aspects of AI in courts is its lack of transparency. If a litigant receives a judgment from CourtGPT, can they really understand why the decision was made with only the input data and results being the known factors? Our judiciary has always emphasized that justice must be reasoned and visible. A “black box” judgment risks eroding the trust in this system, no matter how accurate the result might be. As the Supreme Court has already noted, justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.
AI can summarizing cases, suggesting precedents, or speeding up the process. But the heart of justice lies in human discretion; the ability to weigh emotions, circumstances, and morality alongside the law. Machines can process information, but they cannot uphold values. For this reason, human judges must remain the final decision makers. CJI BR Gavai (top court judge at the relevant time) flagged concerns on the integration of AI in the judiciary and said it should serve as aid.
Conclusion
CourtGPT is an exciting glimpse into the future of legal practice. But efficiency cannot come at the cost of fairness, empathy, or accountability. AI may guide us, but it cannot replace the role of a judge. In the end, justice is not just about code or computation but about humanity; and humanity has and must immemorially remain at the core of our Constitution’s promise.
REFERENCES:
R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924)
Comments