Introduction
Human judges have been adjudicating disputes before the courts and other adjudicative bodies for centuries[[i]] and that was the norm until Artificial Intelligence (AI) developed and was deployed in the judicial decision-making system.[[ii]] Emerging and advanced technological tools like generative AI, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Natural Language Processing, Knowledge Graph etc. are taking on the role of judging or assisting human judges in their judicial decision-making process across various jurisdictions including China[iii], Estonia[iv], Taiwan[v], Canada[vi], the UK[vii], USA[viii], Colombia[ix], Malaysia[x], Peru and Mexico[xi].
On the surface, Artificial Intelligence appears as a beneficial tool for lowering the costs and speeding up the judging process.[xii] Proponents argue that judging by AI has the potential to be fairer, more impartial, and more consistent than human judges.[xiii] Although, there is reasonable concern that the integration of AI-powered tech tools in the judicial decision-making system could compromise the independence of the judiciary as an algorithm generated judgement would not be independent from the programmer who created it, nor from the data processed and maintained by an automated system.[xiv] Moreover, court decisions produced by AI tech tools could potentially threaten the basic principles of human rights and the rule of law as there are severe concerns over the protection and right to privacy, algorithmic discrimination and bias, and reduced public trust on AI justice etc.[xv]
This paper aims to uncover the potentials and perils of artificial judicial decision-making and focuses particularly on the risk of compromised independence of the judiciary and the possible impacts on human rights through the integration of AI in the judicial decision-making process. It concludes that modern AI tech tools have the potential to play assistive, supportive and supplementary roles alongside human judges in the court, but that careful consideration is needed before deploying such tools into the judicial decision-making process.
The Utilities of AI in the Justice System
Human judges inherently possess different types of bias which is ultimately reflected in their judicial decisions while performing the role of judge in a case.[xvi] Additionally, human judges are far more costly than AI systems as they need regular training, they need years of preparation, and they take time to settle cases, in addition to being limited in number, and, unlike AI systems, they retire. Hence, the existing human-dependent court system faces a lot of challenges such as the frequent adjournment of cases, miscarriages of justice, preferred or selective outcomes, and unjust attitudes towards the underprivileged etc.[xvii] Consequently, delays in settlement or resolution, limited access to justice, unfair treatment, and an inconsistent delivery of justice all significantly affect the victims, witnesses, and accused.
In contrast, judging by AI-powered tools has the potential to transform the traditional, costly, time-consuming and unjust system into one that delivers justice faster, smarter, more consistently, and seamlessly on the large scale.[xviii] The algorithmic systems used to resolve disputes in court avoid personal preferences, discrimination, corruption, and other socio-economic discrimination. In contrast, human judges have already exhibited significant inconsistency, both collectively and individually, in their judicial functions, with, for example, similar offences receiving various penalties in different courts with different judges.
Apart from the abovementioned tasks, the latest AI justice tools can predict probable outcomes of a case even before the commencement of the legal proceeding by analysing a huge number of similar types of previous case data.[xix] These tools also assist in identifying the risks associated with litigation and provide the probability of success in the courtroom. This new technology can forecast judge tendencies, opposing counsel behavior, and court dynamics. As a result, such tools have emerged as a game changer in the sector to make the justice system more convenient for people.
The Danger of Compromised Independence
The implication of artificial judicial decision-making on the independence of the judiciary has to be considered alongside the benefits of it. Independence denotes the separation of powers and the protection of the judiciary from any influence or interventions by the executive and legislative branches of the state or from judges or litigants themselves.[xx]
Firstly, the integration of AI in deciding court cases will turn human judges into mere supervisors or editors of an algorithmic system-generated verdict, and this diminishes a judge’s ability to apply their own experience, intelligence, intuition, empathy and discretion, where needed.[xxi]
Secondly, the integration of AI has the prospect to privatize a purely public sector through the incorporation of private companies who create the AI software and devices, without such companies necessarily embedding the core values of fairness and equality. This, in turn, is problematic as court authorities may use, even unknowingly, a decision-making algorithm from a private entity who has economic and political interests that are not aligned with the judiciary’s principles of justice and independence.[xxii]
Thirdly, there are predictive AI tools in the market which are being used to profile the judges, understand their pattern in delivering judgment in a particular matter, and finally predict a possible outcome in a similar future case.[xxiii] This trend will create undue pressure upon the judges and compromise their independence as they will fear of being followed and profiled by someone else while delivering decision. Also, human judges are likely to be unduly influenced by the outcome of AI even though they do not fully rely on the conclusion presented by AI software. This could weaken their commitment to try any matter solely based on law. Therefore, fundamental judicial values like fairness of justice, transparency, accountability, impartiality etc. would be in serious question.
Thus, issuing a verdict using an artificial intelligence-based IT system cannot be deemed independent considering a court’s adjudicative autonomy and statutory authority. In addition, the possibility of any influence made by a state’s executive or legislative branch, such as over data centres used for digitising judicial decisions, the selection of training data for neural systems, or the design of algorithms employed in courtrooms, would potentially compromise the independence of the judiciary.[xxiv]
AI Neglects Human Rights
The concerns over the protection of human rights have been overwhelmingly neglected in the implementation of AI in judicial decision-making. The right to get a fair trial and a reasoned decision is one of the crucial rights for everyone.[xxv] There is a high possibility that judges will be unable to provide the reasons of a judgment produced by an AI system.[xxvi] This is because AI software often does not provide detailed information about its functionality and the reasons for its decision as AI conclusions are derived from unintelligible algorithms that determine correlations between various data points.
Furthermore, information about how an AI system functions are not revealed by the manufacturers for the reasons of operational secrecy, to protect trade secrets, or to protect the privacy of personal information in training data.[xxvii] Hence, the inability to explain how a model arrived at a particular decision can hinder the fairness of the process and violates legal guaranteed rights of litigants to get a reasoned decision. On the other hand, the reasoning of an AI system cannot be held to the same standard as the reasoning offered by human judges.[xxviii]
AI relies on vast past databases which may lead to inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or out of date outcomes as it has a cutoff date for its training data. Hence, there is the high possibility that algorithmic judges would replicate the previous mistakes, discrimination, and bias that contained prejudices of former human-judged cases. Additionally, AI does not have the self-capacity to evaluate and adapt with the social changes of the time and play a progressive role to advance the human rights of marginalized groups.
Another crucial aspect is the security of clients’ privileged data when shared with AI algorithms for training or other purposes.[xxix] On the contrary, there is a risk that AI judges could be hacked or manipulated, which could lead to wrongful convictions.[xxx] Moreover, if all tiers of the courts are allowed to use AI in the decision-making stage and if the highest court also integrates it, then the right to seek remedy for wrongful judgment will be violated and there will be no forum to rectify the mistake of the AI.
Thoughts to Minimize the Risks
Judges are not usually obligated to reveal the preparatory work which may have been done in order to make a decision. However, as trends have changed and AI is now a tool at the judges’ disposal, it is vital that judges must publicly disclose all information as to how, and up to what extent, AI has been used in the course of their decision-making. Judges should also explain why they decided to deploy AI, justify the causes of accepting the AI-generated outcomes, and specifically indicate which portions contain AI-made conclusions in a proceeding.
Judges should demonstrate that such use of AI was proportional and essential for that case. They should further confirm that the AI-generated outcomes have been carefully gone through, that they have verified the information, and take full responsibility for the outcomes produced by AI ensuring that they are compliant with the law and do not violate fundamental principles of justice such as fairness, equality and equal protection of law, human rights, rule of law etc.
Apart from these, the court administration should take initiatives to develop AI tools themselves to prevent privatization and avoid a conflict of interest. In addition, they should provide comprehensive guidelines and checklists as to the scope, extent and limit of using AI in judicial functions and enact robust regulation to ensure ethical and responsible use of tech tools in judicial procedures. Also, court authorities must arrange thorough training for judges and court staff about the functionality of AI systems, its benefits, authenticity, dangers, suitability, necessity, and techniques to avoid the risks.
Conclusion
It is apparent from the above discussion that both human-based systems and advanced technology centric systems have shortcomings in judicial decision-making. Thus, the justice sector needs a balanced combination of human and tech tools to make it efficient and effective. Otherwise, the cost of relying on the latest tech tools and removing a century long practice might lead to the reinstitution of an array of blunders, sanctions, dismissals, and utter chaos.
However, trusting AI for judicial decision-making requires thoughtful considerations. Judging is unique work which requires human virtue such as cognitive, discretion, and empathy to value and determine each situation individually, whereas artificial intelligence lacks individual judgment to a particular situation and contextual understanding. AI-powered tools also fail to interpret and measure broad legal terms (i.e. reasonableness, good faith) which is a core responsibility of a judge that needs human intervention. As a result, applying a set of formularized mechanisms to resolve all disputes will only bring about new controversies, will minimize the independence of the judiciary, and will curtail the human rights of litigants.
[i] Marcin Górski, ‘Why a Human Court? On the Right to a Human Judge in the Context of the Fair Trial Principle’ [2023] Eucrim <https://son.uni.lodz.pl/info/article/UL4cf7f588553e4a61bd15e0f53fc78a0f/> accessed 24 March 2025.
[ii] Morgiane Noel, ‘AI is already being used in the legal system – we need to pay more attention to how we use it’ (The Conversation, 22 May 2023) <https://theconversation.com/ai-is-already-being-used-in-the-legal-system-we-need-to-pay-more-attention-to-how-we-use-it-205441> accessed 16 August 2025
[iii] Stephen Chen, ‘China’s court AI reaches every corner of justice system, advising judges and streamlining punishment’ South China Morning Post (Hong Kong, 13 July 2022).
[iv] ‘Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So’, (WIRED, 25 March 2019) https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/ accessed 16 August 2025
[v] Wu Cheng-feng and Jake Chung, ‘Courts to trial AI to draft rulings VIRTUAL CLERK: Judges have said they are satisfied’ Taipei Times (New Taipei City, 27 August 2024).
[vi] Nick Hilborne, ‘Robot mediator settles first ever court case’ (ADR Institute of Canada, 19 February 2019) https://adric.ca/robot-mediator-settles-first-ever-court-case/ accessed 16 August 2025
[vii] Nicola Davis, ‘AI mediation tool may help reduce culture war rifts, say researchers’The Guardian (London, 17 October 2024)
[viii] Allyson Brunette, ‘Humanizing Justice: The transformational impact of AI in courts, from filing to sentencing’ (Thomson Reuters, 25 October 2024) https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/ai-in-courts/humanizing-justice/#:~:text=AI%20software%20was%20used%20to,play%20in%20judges’%20discretionary%20decisions. accessed 16 August 2025
[ix] Pablo Rueda Saiz, ‘Docket Selection and Judicial Responsiveness: The Use of AI in the Colombian Constitutional Court’ (2021) 30 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 419.
[x] Rina Chandran, ‘FEATURE-As Malaysia tests AI court sentencing, some lawyers fear for justice’ Reuters (London, 12 April 2022).
[xi] Juan David Gutiérrez, ‘Judges and Magistrates in Peru and Mexico Have ChatGPT Fever’ (Tech Policy.Press, 19 April 2023) https://www.techpolicy.press/judges-and-magistrates-in-peru-and-mexico-have-chatgpt-fever/ accessed 16 August 2025
[xii] Benjamin Alarie, Anthony Niblett and Albert H Yoon, ‘How Artificial Intelligence Will Affect the Practice of Law’ (2018) 68 University of Toronto Law Journal 106.
[xiii] Karen Hao and Jonathan Stray, ‘Can You Make AI Fairer than a Judge? Play Our Courtroom Algorithm Game’ [2019] MIT Technology Review.
[xiv] Górski (n 1).
[xv] Anna Fine and Shawn Marsh, ‘Judicial Leadership Matters (yet Again): The Association between Judge and Public Trust for Artificial Intelligence in Courts’ (2024) 4 Discover Artificial Intelligence 44.
[xvi] Allison P Harris and Maya Sen, ‘Bias and Judging’ (2019) 22 Annual Review of Political Science 241.
[xvii] Karma Peiró and Ricardo Baeza-Yates, ‘Can Algorithms Be Fairer Than People?’ (CCCB Lab, 18 January 2022) < https://lab.cccb.org/en/can-algorithms-be-fairer-than-people/#:~:text=In%20contrast%2C%20an%20intelligent%20system,intrinsic%20biases%20contained%20in%20data.> accessed 16 August 2025
[xviii] Brunette (n 8)
[xix] Prof Felix Steffek and Dr Helena Xie, ‘How can we… use AI to predict the outcome of court cases?’ (Accelerate Program for Scientific Discovery-University of Cambridge, 1 October 2024) < https://science.ai.cam.ac.uk/2024/10/01/how-can-we-use-ai-to-predict-the-outcome-of-court-cases> accessed 16 August 2025
[xx] Case of Beaumartin V. France, 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-B
[xxi] Daan Kolkman and others, ‘Justitia Ex Machina: The Impact of an AI System on Legal Decision-Making and Discretionary Authority’ (2024) 11 Big Data & Society <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20539517241255101> accessed 16 August 2025.
[xxii] Isaac Ben-Israel and others, ‘Towards Regulation of AI Systems’ [2020] Council of Europe.
[xxiii] Kashif Javed and Jianxin Li, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Adjudication: Semantic Biasness Classification and Identification in Legal Judgement (SBCILJ)’ (2024) 10 Heliyon <https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(24)06215-7> accessed 16 August 2025.
[xxiv] Giulia Gentile, ‘AI in the courtroom and judicial independence: An EU perspective’, (EU Ideas, 22 August 2022) < https://euideas.eui.eu/2022/08/22/ai-in-the-courtroom-and-judicial-independence-an-eu-perspective/> accessed 16 August 2025
[xxv] ‘Human Rights and Constitutional Rights’,Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission < https://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/factsheets/human-rights-and-constitutional-rights/#:~:text=You%20have%20the%20right%20to%20a%20fair%20and%20public%20trial,independent%20and%20impartial%20decision%2Dmaker.> accessed 16 August 2025
[xxvi] Dawn Lo, ‘Can AI replace a judge in the courtroom?’ (The University of New South Wales,1 October 2021) < https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2021/10/can-ai-replace-judge-courtroom> accessed 16 August 2025
[xxvii] Katarina Foss-Solbrekk, ‘Searchlights across the Black Box: Trade Secrecy versus Access to Information’ (2023) 50 Computer Law & Security Review 105811.
[xxviii] Zichun Xu, ‘Human Judges in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities’ (2022) 36 Applied Artificial Intelligence 2013652.
[xxix] Chanal McCain, ‘Generating . . . Client Confidentiality Concerns in the Use of Generative AI Technology’ (New England Law Review Blog) < https://newenglrev.com/2024/05/16/generating-client-confidentiality-concerns-in-the-use-of-generative-ai-technology/> accessed 16 August 2025
[xxx] Sonia M Gipson Rankin, ‘Technological Tethereds: Potential Impact of Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice Risk Assessment Instruments’ (2021) 78 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 647.