Moral Code Vs Machine Code: Justice At The Edge Of The Abyss
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 28
- 2 min read
Karthik Isunooru, BBA LLB, VIT-AP School of Law, VIT-AP University.
ABSTRACT
As artificial intelligence starts drafting contracts, summarizing judgements and even nudging judges toward decisions, we are forced to ask can machine built on logic and data ever truly understand justice? This paper discusses this question, especially in the context of India’s legal system, where morality isn’t just a theory but a lived constitutional value steeped in ideas of dharma, fairness and human desecration. With tools like Digilawyer-AI and ChatGPT based assistant creeping into the courtrooms and law offices, the promise of efficiency often blinds us to the bigger risk: Are we trading moral judgement for mechanical convenience? Sure, AI can analyze precedent and predict outcomes faster than any human. But law isn’t math. Its messy, contextual, deeply human. When models trained on biased data start informing bail decisions or sentencing, the myth of machine neutrality begins to crack. This paper pushes back the idea that more tech automatically pushes back the idea that more tech means better justice. It unpacks how algorithmic decision making clashes with constitutional morality, professional ethics and ancient Indian traditions rooted in Nyaya and Viveka, the sense of what’s right and what’s merely legal. Using real life case studies (like courts resisting AI-generated translations or ChatGPT’s controversial citations) it argues that AI can support legal systems but can never replace human judgement at its core. What we need isn’t smarter machines but sharper human guardrails. This paper argues for a clear ethical and regulatory framework, one that treats ai as a tool not a moral compass. Because justice in the end is not code its conscience.
Keywords: Constitutional Morality, Legal Ethics, AI in Law, Judicial Responsibility
