AI Use in Indian Courts Remains Limited to Pilots as Government Rules Out Formal Policy

On December 18, the government informed the Lok Sabha that India has not yet framed any formal policy governing the use of artificial intelligence in judicial processes. Responding to a question in Parliament, the Union Law Minister clarified that AI use in Indian courts is currently restricted to pilot projects and experimental deployments under the broader digital modernisation programme.

The statement came in the context of the recently approved eCourts Phase-III project, which has received a financial outlay of ₹7,210 crore. While the programme includes provisions for artificial intelligence, blockchain tools, and speech-to-text technologies, the minister emphasised that these initiatives are still at a testing stage.

According to the government, AI use in Indian courts is being explored cautiously, with no immediate plan to introduce automated decision-making or AI-driven adjudication. The reply underscored the distinction between digitisation of court infrastructure and the use of AI in core judicial functions.

What Parliament was told about AI in judicial processes

In his reply to the Lok Sabha, the Law Minister stated that “no formal policy has been framed so far” for the use of artificial intelligence in courts. He added that whatever AI-related initiatives exist are part of limited pilots and proof-of-concept projects.

The government noted that AI tools are being explored primarily to assist administrative and support functions rather than judicial decision-making. This clarification is significant amid growing public discussion around the potential role of AI in courts and concerns about automation affecting judicial independence.

The reply made it clear that AI use in Indian courts is not intended to replace judges or legal reasoning. Instead, the focus remains on improving efficiency through digital support systems, while the judiciary continues to examine the risks and ethical implications of AI adoption.

eCourts Phase-III and the scale of digital investment

A major part of the parliamentary response focused on the scope and funding of eCourts Phase-III, which was approved recently as the next stage of India’s judicial digitisation drive.

The eCourts Phase-III project has been allocated ₹7,210 crore, reflecting the government’s emphasis on strengthening digital infrastructure across courts. The funding is aimed at improving case management systems, connectivity, and access to justice through technology.

Within this allocation, ₹53.57 crore has been earmarked specifically for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain. These funds are intended for experimental tools and pilot projects rather than large-scale deployment.

The Law Minister highlighted that the investment is primarily infrastructure-driven, designed to support courts with better digital capabilities rather than to introduce automated judicial functions.

Pilot projects currently testing AI use in Indian courts

As part of its reply, the government listed several pilot initiatives that illustrate the current scope of AI use in Indian courts.

Among these is “LegRAA”, an AI-based legal research assistance tool being tested to help with retrieval and organisation of legal information. Another pilot, “Shruti”, focuses on speech-to-text technology to transcribe court proceedings in real time.

The government also referred to Project Panini, which aims to enable voice-to-text translation of court proceedings, particularly to assist judges and court staff in handling large volumes of oral submissions.

These projects are designed to support court administration and documentation rather than to influence judicial reasoning. The Law Minister described them as experimental, reinforcing that AI deployment remains limited and carefully monitored.

Speech-to-text technology and courtroom accessibility

One of the most prominent components of AI use in Indian courts under eCourts Phase-III is speech-to-text translation. This technology converts spoken words into written transcripts, helping courts maintain accurate records of proceedings.

The government explained that such tools are particularly useful in high-volume courts where manual transcription can be time-consuming and prone to error. By using AI-assisted transcription, courts aim to improve efficiency without altering the substantive judicial process.

Speech-to-text systems like Shruti are being tested to assess accuracy, language compatibility, and adaptability to courtroom environments. The pilot phase allows authorities to evaluate performance before any wider rollout.

The parliamentary reply stressed that these tools are meant to assist human users, not replace them, aligning with the broader cautious approach to AI use in Indian courts.

Blockchain tools and digital record management

In addition to AI, eCourts Phase-III includes exploration of blockchain technology. Blockchain is a digital ledger system designed to ensure secure and tamper-proof record keeping.

The government indicated that blockchain tools may be tested for maintaining court records and ensuring data integrity. While details of specific use cases were not elaborated upon in the parliamentary reply, the inclusion of blockchain highlights interest in emerging technologies for judicial administration.

As with AI tools, blockchain deployment remains at a pilot level. The government emphasised that such technologies are part of a broader effort to modernise infrastructure rather than to transform adjudication itself.

Judicial committees studying AI-related risks

The Law Minister also informed Parliament that the judiciary has constituted committees to study the risks and implications of artificial intelligence in the justice system. These committees are examining ethical, procedural, and institutional concerns associated with AI adoption.

The existence of such committees reflects recognition that AI use in Indian courts raises complex questions beyond technical feasibility. Issues such as transparency, bias, accountability, and data security are being considered before any policy decisions are made.

The government’s response suggested that policy formulation would follow deliberations within the judiciary, rather than being imposed solely through executive action.

Distinction between digitisation and automation

A key theme emerging from the parliamentary reply is the clear distinction drawn between digitisation and automation. Digitisation refers to converting processes into digital formats, while automation involves delegating tasks to machines.

The government’s position is that AI use in Indian courts currently falls firmly within the digitisation category. Tools like legal research assistance and transcription help manage information more efficiently but do not make judicial decisions.

This distinction is central to understanding the cautious tone of the government’s statement. By limiting AI use to support functions, authorities seek to avoid concerns about algorithmic influence on justice delivery.

Why no formal AI policy has been framed yet

The absence of a formal policy on AI use in Indian courts reflects the evolving nature of the technology and the sensitivity of judicial functions. The government’s reply suggested that it would be premature to adopt a comprehensive policy without sufficient experience from pilot projects.

AI tools raise questions about accuracy, bias, and accountability, particularly in a system that relies heavily on human judgment. By proceeding through pilots, the government and judiciary can assess real-world performance and risks.

The Law Minister’s statement indicates that any future policy would be informed by empirical evidence gathered from these experiments, as well as inputs from judicial committees.

Parliamentary response and public transparency

The Lok Sabha reply itself is part of broader efforts to maintain transparency around technology adoption in the justice system. By clarifying the limited scope of AI use in Indian courts, the government addressed concerns about unchecked automation.

The response also highlighted the scale of public investment in digital infrastructure, providing insight into how funds are being allocated within the judicial system.

For observers, the statement offers a snapshot of where India currently stands on AI in courts: ambitious in digital infrastructure, cautious in automation, and deliberative in policy formulation.

Conclusion

The government’s clarification in Parliament that AI use in Indian courts remains confined to pilot projects underscores a measured approach to judicial technology adoption. While eCourts Phase-III represents a significant investment in digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence is being tested primarily as a support tool rather than a decision-maker.

With no formal policy in place and judicial committees studying the associated risks, AI use in Indian courts is evolving incrementally. The parliamentary reply highlights a balancing act between embracing technological efficiency and preserving the core principles of the justice system.

As pilots such as LegRAA, Shruti, and Project Panini continue, their outcomes are likely to shape the future direction of AI integration in India’s courts.