Justice Dipankar Datta has highlighted the growing burden of litigation before the Supreme Court of India. He observed that while artificial intelligence can support judicial functioning, it cannot replace the need for more judges.
According to him, filings before the Supreme Court have increased rapidly. As a result, technology alone cannot absorb the rising caseload.
AI as a Support Tool, Not a Structural Solution
Justice Datta acknowledged that AI-based tools are useful. For instance, they assist in legal research, case management, and administrative efficiency. However, he cautioned against treating technology as a complete solution to judicial shortages.
Importantly, he noted that adjudication requires human judgment. It also involves constitutional interpretation and application of legal principles. Therefore, these core functions cannot be delegated entirely to machines.
Rising Filings Demand Judicial Expansion
Highlighting the surge in case filings, Justice Datta stressed the need for increased judicial strength. According to him, only more judges can meaningfully reduce pendency and delays.
He further observed that even advanced technology becomes ineffective without adequate manpower. In other words, digital tools require sufficient judges to deliver results.
Balancing Innovation With Institutional Reality
Justice Datta emphasised the need for balance. On the one hand, technology should assist the justice system. On the other hand, it must not replace its human foundation.
Accordingly, he called for policy-level focus on judicial appointments, infrastructure, and manpower planning. These efforts, he said, must accompany digital reforms.
He also warned that overreliance on AI could be misleading. Without strengthening judicial ranks, technology may only create an illusion of efficiency.
Why This Perspective Matters
At a time when litigation continues to rise, constitutional courts face immense pressure. In this context, Justice Datta’s remarks highlight a crucial policy concern.
Ultimately, his observations reaffirm that access to justice depends on judges, not algorithms. Therefore, sustainable judicial reform must strengthen human capacity alongside technological support.
