Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing justice systems, but the EU’s cautious four-tiered regulation contrasts with India’s bold e-Justice push. This post unpacks how both approaches aim to uphold constitutional values, offering a transcontinental dialogue on AI’s judicial promise and perils.

Artificial intelligence has transcended the realm of speculative futurism. It is actively reshaping how justice is delivered globally. The very recent AI Act, promulgated within the European Union, epitomizes a meticulously orchestrated regulatory stratagem. It prioritizes ethical safeguards, establishing a structured framework for risk mitigation. While across the globe in India, eCourts initiative heralds an era of algorithmic adjudication, leveraging AI to optimize judicial processes. It promises greater efficiency while enhancing accessibility. These contrasting approaches raise a pressing question: how can AI enhance justice systems while preserving foundational constitutional principles like equality, fairness, and accountability? This post examines the EU’s regulatory framework, alongside India’s e-Justice innovations. It assesses their implications for constitutional discourse in an AI-driven era. The integration of AI into justice systems responds to modern demands for efficiency, with an aim to strengthen transparency. This helps foster jurisprudential inclusivity. The EU and India illustrate divergent paths toward this objective; each shaped by unique constitutional priorities, reflecting idiosyncratic socio-political matrices.

EU Balancing Innovation and Competitiveness

The EU has pioneered global AI regulation through the AI Act, enacted in 2024. It follows a phased implementation. This regulation categorizes AI applications into four risk levels:

1. Unacceptable risk (e.g., social scoring, banned);
2. High risk (e.g., CV-scanning tools, subject to strict requirements);
3. Limited risk; and
4. Minimal risk (largely unregulated).

Table 1. This table highlights the graduated approach, ensuring proportionate regulation based on risk, a strategy aimed at fostering innovation while protecting fundamental rights

The Act aspires to engender algorithmic probity. It ensures safety while upholding fundamental rights. It promotes human-centric AI, supporting innovation through initiatives like AI Factories. It advances the Coordinated Plan on AI. AI systems used in justice fall under the high-risk category. Legal research tools face strict regulatory scrutiny. AI-assisted court rulings must comply with transparency obligations. The Act ensures alignment with fundamental rights, safeguarding data protection. It mandates the entrenchment of anti-discriminatory precepts. It ensures doctrinal congruence with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU’s approach endeavors to fortify technological hegemony. It aspires to situate European enterprises at the vanguard of algorithmic integrity. However, there is debate about whether stringent regulations might hinder innovation. This remains particularly onerous for nascent ventures and small-to-medium-sized economic entities. This potentially impacts Europe’s global AI market position. This tension is evident in discussions on Innovation vs. Regulation, where compliance burdens could slow technological development.

India’s e-Justice System: Integrating AI for Judicial Modernization

India’s eCourts project, a pan-India initiative monitored by the Department of Justice and funded with Rs 7,210 crore (7.63 billion euros) for Phase III, aims to transform the judiciary through ICT enablement. Phase III, rooted in “access and inclusion,” focuses on creating a unified technology platform for paperless courts, with AI integration for data-based decision-making. The Supreme Court’s e-Committee spearheads the institutional assimilation of AI. It orchestrates the deployment of computational frameworks. SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) exemplifies this initiative. It constitutes a jurisprudential linguistics apparatus. It effectuates the transliteration of judicial manuscripts into vernacular lexicons, amplifying jurisprudential accessibility. Other applications include legal research assistance via NLP, case management for prioritizing hearings, and virtual hearings, particularly crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic. An unexpected detail is the use of ChatGPT in a Punjab and Haryana High Court bail order, showing AI’s growing judicial role, as reported on AI in Indian Judiciary. Another example includes the Supreme Court’s AI-driven transcription of oral arguments. It is quite effective in enhancing overall efficiency. Recent developments include Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s advocacy for AI in case sorting and compensation calculations, and government support through the IndiaAI Mission, allocating ₹5,000 crore (5.29 billion euros) for AI computing power. The Supreme Court’s AI Committee identifies applications in translation, legal research, and process automation, aiming to reduce the backlog of over 50 million cases.

AI in India’s judiciary advances several constitutional values, aligning with Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial):

1. Access to Justice: AI tools like chatbots provide initial legal guidance, making justice accessible for underserved populations. Virtual hearings, facilitated by the eCourts project, ensure continuity during crises. Translation services, such as SUVAS, address linguistic diversity, ensuring legal access for non-English speakers.
2. Equality: AI reduces judicial delays. It prioritizes cases through data-driven analysis. It minimizes human biases in adjudication. This aligns with constitutional mandates for equal treatment, where AI’s role is evaluated for fairness under Articles 14 and 21.
3. Efficiency: AI automates administrative tasks. It enhances transparency through public access to case statuses via the National Judicial Data Grid. It also tackles backlogs, a persistent issue, fulfilling the right to speedy trial.

Despite these advancements, systemic exigencies persist:

1. Data Privacy: AI systems rely on vast amounts of data. This raises concerns about protecting sensitive legal information. This is particularly relevant post-Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The judgment recognized privacy as a fundamental right. The absence of specific AI regulations intensifies these concerns.
2. Accountability: Ensuring AI decisions are explainable is crucial, especially in judicial contexts affecting life and liberty. The Supreme Court’s AI Committee is working on ethical guidelines to address these very issues. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud chairs the initiative.
3. Ethical Governance: There is a need to ensure that AI aligns with constitutional principles. Innovation and regulation must be balanced appropriately. It needs to be somewhat similar to the EU’s approach but tailored to India’s context.

Comparative Insights

India’s approach offers lessons for the EU, particularly in leveraging AI for access and inclusion, while the EU’s regulatory framework provides a model for ethical governance. The integration of AI in India’s e-Justice system demonstrates a commitment to constitutional values.

Table 2. Comparison of AI Approaches in EU and India

The EU’s top-down regulation contrasts with India’s pragmatic, technology-first approach. The EU prioritizes preemptive risk mitigation, whereas India focuses on scalability advancing access to AI-driven systems. This approach reflects its constitutional mandate to bridge socio-economic divides. Both systems, however, grapple with ensuring AI aligns with constitutional values—transparency and accountability in the EU, and equality and justice in India. The EU’s model offers a blueprint for governance, but its rigidity may limit adaptability. India’s flexibility, conversely, risks insufficient oversight, particularly regarding privacy and bias. These trade-offs highlight a global challenge: crafting AI frameworks that innovate without compromising rights.

Conclusion

The EU and India’s approaches to AI in justice systems reveal a shared goal—enhancing judicial efficacy while safeguarding constitutional principles—yet their methods diverge sharply. The EU’s regulatory caution provides a robust ethical foundation, while India’s e-Justice system demonstrates AI’s transformative potential for access and efficiency. As AI continues to evolve, these experiences underscore a critical need: frameworks that balance innovation with accountability, ensuring that technology serves justice rather than undermines it. The future of constitutional discourse lies in harmonizing these lessons, a task that demands global collaboration beyond borders.

Sahibpreet Singh, BA, LLB, LLM, is a legal practitioner at the Punjab & Haryana High Court in India and a researcher at a prestigious Japan-based research institute. He secured distinction in Criminal Law during his LLM, highlighting his excellence in the field. Certified in Cybersecurity by IBM, he has academic ties to Khalsa College, Guru Nanak Dev University, and the Indian Institute of Technology Madras. Singh is an active member of the Bar Council of India and Space Generation Advisory Council. With over 30 publications on law and artificial intelligence, he actively contributes to legal and academic scholarships. His experience spans Government of Punjab roles and various legal settings, enhanced by specialized courses from Politecnico di Milano and Lunds Universitet.