Observing it as “premature”, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a slew of reforms in the justice delivery system, including the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools for advocates, litigants, legal aid and court administration.
In response to the PIL titled Yang Burzhome (Mohammad Ashfaq Hussain Handoo), a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Muhammad Yousuf Wani held that the PIL was premature at present as the digitisation of court records and development of applications aimed at augmenting the justice delivery system are already underway.
The PIL had sought the court’s intervention to direct the Registrar General of the High Court, Bar Council of India, Union of India and National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) for implementation of a broad “AI-powered justice modernisation framework.”
Although the petitioner sought several directions through the PIL, the main proposals included the creation of an AI-powered “Know Your Advocate Card (KYA)”, containing information relating to advocates’ professional profiles, disposal rates, adjournment history, disciplinary records and fee structures.
It also sought to put in place an AI-powered “Case Health Card” through a proposed “Nyaya Mitra Solution Explorer”, which would assess the legal foundation of cases, precedent alignment, evidence and procedural readiness, limitation and jurisdiction issues, and provide plain-language summaries and estimates concerning case disposal.
The PIL also sought proposals that included mandatory Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for advocates, greater access to legal databases and AI-assisted legal research, transparent fee and billing guidelines, automated monitoring of unnecessary adjournments, independent disciplinary and ethics tribunals, expansion of the public defender model and multilingual AI legal assistants.
Moreover, it had sought strengthened e-Sewa Kendras for marginalized and rural litigants and advocated increased financial support for the judiciary, including enhanced judicial infrastructure and measures to address vacancies and case pendency.
In response to the plea, the court observed that some of the issues raised could be helpful in improving and reforming the justice delivery system in the long run. It, however, noted that the PIL was premature as digitisation of court records and development of applications aimed at improving justice delivery were already underway.
The E-Committee of the Supreme Court and NALSA are already seized of these issues, it noted.
Observing that issuing directions while existing initiatives are underway may not be conducive to their implementation, the court declined to entertain the PIL at this stage. It, however, gave the petitioner the liberty to raise the issues again after awaiting the outcome of the measures already initiated by the concerned authorities.
