Algorithmic Justice And The Future Of Courts (A Comparative Study Of AI Integration In Global Judicial Systems)
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 28
- 2 min read
Lakshay Mann, Christ (Deemed To Be) University, Delhi, NCR
INTRODUCTION
The world is quickly becoming artificial in terms of artificial intelligence (AI), which affects the operation of courts and how justice is served according to the case, legal research, and legal study. Although previous reforms in most jurisdictions prioritized e-governance and digitization of court records, recent events are pointing towards the use of algorithmic tools to aid in translation, prioritizing cases, predictive analytics, and administrative decision-making. These changes hold efficiency and efficacy of access to justice, but they also spark more stressing basic issues regarding fairness, openness, duty, and the unwavering prevalence of human judgment in the justice system.
This chapter provides a comparative study of four jurisdictions India, the European Union, the United States, and China to understand how AI is incorporated into judicial operations and how the concept of algorithmic justice is conceptualized in various jurisdictions. Such jurisdictions have been chosen as they are the different models and philosophies of governance. India is a model of efficiency, access-driven systems pressure; European Union is a model of a rights- based and precautionary regulation system; the United States is a model of ethics, judicial discretion, and constitutional protection; and China is a model of a state-based, technology- intensive, system of judicial automation. These cases, taken together, create a cross-sectional overview of the ways the judiciary all over the world approaches AI.
There are three main contributions that this chapter makes. To begin with, it provides a four- jurisdiction comparative methodology that goes beyond national studies of judicial AI separately. Second, it formulates the notion of algorithmic justice in three interconnected aspects of substantive, procedural and institutional legitimacy between technological design decisions and constitutional values, due process and judicial ethics. Third, it pursues technology innovation-related policy-relevant recommendations to reconcile the needs of technological innovation and judicial accountability, transparency, and public trust both at the national and global levels.
