Justice Rastogi: It is the need of the hour. But replacing a judicial mind is not possible. In courts, sometimes the matters that come are of the same kind. You hardly need more scrutiny in those matters. But they are pending and, because of paucity of time and long dockets, they are not being taken up.
Here, AI can work.
It can give us some guidance and we can pass orders. Like motor accident matters. To my understanding, 5-7 minutes is enough to understand and dispose of these matters. Here, our system is working on what has to be the compensation under different heads. So, we can dispose of those matters. But in Constitutional, tax, revenue, individual liberty, and interpretation matters, it cannot.
Clerical work can be made faster and certain areas where there are common orders passed in areas of settled law – there AI may be of some use.
If we start using AI for other orders, it will be a disaster. Because we (judges) are concerned with human beings, their problems. Laws are made for them, they are not made for laws. As long as law works for them, it gives them what they expect. The day we have citizens made for law, to my mind, it will be a disaster.
IBC has amendments and amendments coming forward, because the Legislature finds it is not working for the purposes it was brought in for. So, whenever they find something wrong, they plug it, make amendments. So amendments, to my mind, are to make it more workable and make it more acceptable for the parties.
Source: Barandbench
