JUSTICE ON TRIAL EFFICIENCY VS EMPATHY WORD

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence in the contemporary world has emerged as a global phenomenon that is actively influencing and shaping the younger generation. Its necessity has been observed and felt by the people in many significant ways and in several fields, that being governance, healthcare, education, and most importantly, the justice delivery system. It is noteworthy that Artificial Intelligence has found its application in areas such as legal research, case management, transcription, and predictive analytics. Traditionally, Justice dispersion heavily relied upon human judgment, discretion, and moral reasoning. This process involves not only the application of law but also the evaluation of facts, assessment of credibility, consideration of equity and fairness. But nowadays Courts across jurisdictions have been observed leaning towards technological advancements to address mounting challenges and tackle the pre-existing ones such as backlog, procedural inefficiencies, judicial delay and subsequently promising greater administrative efficiency and judicial consistency. However, the increasing integration of such technologies into judicial system has critical concerns surrounding AI’s accountability and impact. Unregulated or excessive reliance of advancements to the Judicial Framework exposes a potential risk or threat of disruption to the flow of administration. Judicial decision-making is not merely a practice of technology but rather a broad domain involving interpretation and analyzation of statutes, empathy, equity, and accountability—qualities that a human possesses thus cannot be replicated by algorithmic systems. Against this backdrop, this Article extensively examines whether Artificial Intelligence can assist Judges in Courtrooms let alone substitute the human element of empathy? It evaluates the role of AI in respect to this question without undermining the foundational human values embedded in the justice delivery system. Although AI can play a supportive role in improving judicial efficiency, the core adjudicatory function must remain human to safeguard constitutional principles, public trust, and the rule of law.