Data and justice: On courts in India and AI tools
In the latest step in a long-standing effort to digitise the judiciary, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant announced two initiatives from the Bench, called ‘One Case, One Data’ (OCOD), a unified judicial data platform, and
‘Su-Sahayak’, an AI-powered chatbot on the Supreme Court of India website
. OCOD promises a unified digital trail for a dispute as it moves through various courts, linkages between court records and litigant actions (such as appeals), easier access to various documents, lower need for manual verification, reciprocal access to High Courts and other courts, and more accurate judicial statistics. It is notable considering the wide variation in software practices and records quality across India’s thousands of district and subordinate courts. If the programme succeeds, standardised data could also allow administrators to determine where cases are held up and ease procedural bottlenecks, and improve data-based decision-making overall. ‘Su-Sahayak’ has been integrated into the Court website’s front-end to help users navigate case status, cause lists, orders and judgments, e-services, and frequently asked questions. As with any major state-backed technology rollout in India, questions about interoperability, integrity of legacy records, restricting access to private information, and staff skilling remain. By aspiring to a centralised digital fingerprint for each case, OCOD also bears the risk of misuse.
While the CJI said that these new tools will improve “access to justice”, their introduction risks deepening the digital divide. OCOD may require lawyers to maintain digital scanners, cloud backup options, and updated software. Metropolitan corporate firms can easily absorb these costs but independent practitioners in the district and taluka levels will lack the capital. The system may also introduce digital middlemen to help litigants who cannot navigate the e-filing portal, potentially creating a new layer of unregulated costs. While the government has launched assistants with voice-first capabilities, such as Jan Sahayak, ‘Su-Sahayak’ is primarily text-based and could exclude people who are not comfortable typing or navigating complex website menus. The state and the judiciary must ensure that the AI model is not biased against marginalised communities who were historically disproportionately arrested or denied bail. India’s courts have generally been more comfortable with AI for assistance than for substantive reasoning. ‘Su-Sahayak’ follows SUVAS, to translate judgments, and SUPACE, which processes facts and legal precedents. The line must continue to hold as the judiciary adopts more powerful tools that have already tempted practitioners in other domains to abuse them.
- 1The Supreme Court's initiatives, OCOD and Su-Sahayak, aim to enhance judicial efficiency and "access to justice," aligning with constitutional mandates like Article 39A for legal aid and Article 21 for speedy justice. However, the text-based nature of Su-Sahayak and the digital requirements of OCOD risk deepening the digital divide, potentially excluding citizens unfamiliar with technology or lacking resources. This raises concerns about equitable access to the justice system, a fundamental tenet of India's democratic polity, if not carefully implemented.
- 2India's judiciary, by adopting AI tools like Su-Sahayak and data platforms like OCOD, positions itself within a global trend of digital transformation in governance, echoing initiatives seen in countries like Singapore and the UK. While aiming for efficiency, the rollout faces challenges regarding data interoperability and privacy, issues central to international data governance discussions and India's own Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The cautious approach of using AI for assistance rather than substantive reasoning reflects a global debate on AI's role in judicial decision-making and ethical boundaries.
- 3The introduction of OCOD and Su-Sahayak necessitates robust legal and regulatory frameworks to address critical concerns like data privacy, integrity of legacy records, and the potential for AI bias. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, becomes crucial in safeguarding private information within OCOD, mitigating misuse risks. Furthermore, the judiciary must establish clear ethical guidelines to ensure AI tools like Su-Sahayak and SUPACE remain assistive, preventing any encroachment into substantive judicial reasoning, a line affirmed by the Supreme Court's cautious approach.
- 4The digitization initiatives risk exacerbating India's existing socio-economic disparities, particularly by deepening the digital divide. While corporate firms can absorb costs for OCOD's digital requirements, independent lawyers in rural areas, where internet penetration is lower than the national average of around 60%, face significant financial burdens. The emergence of unregulated digital middlemen and the text-centric nature of Su-Sahayak further exclude marginalized communities and non-tech-literate citizens, potentially creating new barriers to justice and increasing overall litigation costs for the vulnerable.
Related from CLAT Tribe Blogs
- Operation Sindoor — CLAT Current Affairs Guide
Master Operation Sindoor for CLAT 2026, Phalgam attack, legal angles, IWT suspension, key persons, weapons used & 10 practice MCQs. Your complete GK guide.