Open Access Research Article
REVOLUTIONIZING THE INDIAN LEGAL LANDSCAPE: PREDICTINING THE IMPACT OF AI AND VIRTUAL HEARINGS
Published Paper
Article Details
REVOLUTIONIZING
THE INDIAN LEGAL LANDSCAPE: PREDICTINING THE IMPACT OF AI AND VIRTUAL HEARINGS
AUTHORED BY
- ARYAMAN KESHAV
Introduction
The Covid-19 Pandemic brought the
world to a complete standstill in 2019. The effect of the pandemic can easily
be seen on the legal system of India as well. The legal landscape of India has
is synonymous with paperwork and conventional means of functioning. Even though
the computerization of courts initiative began in 2010, technology was employed
sparsely within the legal realm of India prior to the epidemic. Technological
innovation has become the need for the hour at this moment as cases keep piling
up in Indian courts. This research paper seeks to explore the use of technology
in terms of Artificial Intelligence and virtual hearings, examining their
advantages and limitations, and assessing their impact on the justice system.
Through an in-depth analysis of relevant case law and legislative provisions,
the author aims to provide a thorough understanding of the current state of technology
in Indian criminal courts and offer insights into their future potential.
Statement
of Problem
While technology has the potential to
revolutionize the criminal justice system by improving efficiency and
accessibility, it also presents several challenges. The statement of problem
for this research paper is to identify and evaluate the advantages as well as challenges
and limitations associated with the use of technology in criminal procedure in
India.
Research
Question
1. Whether AI
and virtual trials can be used to enhance the decision-making process under
Indian judiciary, and what challenges and limitations need to be addressed?
2. Whether the
implementation of this technology has resulted in reduction in case backlogs
and improvement in access to justice?
3. How have
other countries implemented new technology in their judiciary systems, and what
lessons can be learned from these experiences in order to improve the use of AI
and virtual trials in India?
Research
Objectives
1. To analyse
the effectiveness of AI and virtual trials in enhancing the decision-making
process of the Indian judiciary system
2. To analyse
the experiences of other countries in implementing new technology, including AI
and virtual trials, in their judiciary systems
3. To analyse
the barriers that the Indian judiciary encounters while using AI and Virtual
trials
Hypothesis
The use of AI and virtual trials has the
potential to enhance the decision-making process in the Indian judiciary
system, reduce case backlogs, and improve access to justice. However,
successful implementation and adoption of these technologies requires
addressing various challenges and limitations, as well as learning from the
experiences of other countries in implementing similar technologies in their
judiciary systems.
Research
Methodology
The author would refer to publicly
available material like research papers, books, documentaries as a source of
data and information in their research.
CHAPTER 1:
THE COVID-19 IMPACT
The COVID-19 pandemic that resulted
in lockdowns in many countries globally has caused widespread disruption in all
aspects of life. The most effective method to contain the spread of the virus
in society has been social distancing. Nevertheless, these directives for
social distancing have brought about significant changes to various industries
worldwide.[1]
When Covid-19 hit the world, it was
expected that law would display its characteristic tendency towards crisis and
maintain its typical caution by trying to hold on to the status quo and
expecting things to blow over rather than change its structure.[2] This
rigid unchanging approach is justified because if law changes constantly for
every crisis, it will exaggerate the situation even more as people would look
at law for upholding the normal ways of life and in absence of such stability
that law provides, would spiral into confusion. It has been ingrained in the
structure of law to be stable and predictable.[3]
However, Covid-19 was different. It brought attention to the antiquated methods
of dispensing justice, teaching law, and delivering legal services. Within a
few weeks, online learning became the norm for law schools and technology has
become crucial for operational purposes.
According to official numbers, while
the number of new cases filed in both the higher and lower courts has reduced
since the country-wide lockdown commenced on March 25, the disposal rate has
also deteriorated as a consequence of the imposed closure of courts. In April
of 2020, 82,725 cases were filed in Indian courts, with 35,169 cases being
dismissed. In 2019, the average number of cases filed each month was roughly 14
lakh (total number of cases 1.70 crore), while the average number of cases
disposed of was 13.25 lakh (total number of cases 1.59 crore).[4]
In Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh,
seeing the outbreak of the virus, the District and Sub-Divisional Courts were
instructed to only hear bail matters and cases that required immediate stay or
injunction until further notice. All other cases were to be adjourned. Cases
that were scheduled for final arguments, including those with specific
timelines, were also postponed until a later date beyond March 31, 2020.
Further courts were instructed not to bring any detainees who are still
awaiting trial to court. Instead, they were instructed to use video
conferencing to conduct hearings and extend remand.[5]
The Indian Parliament established a
Parliamentary Committee Panel to investigate the entire situation and its
ramifications. This marked the first of its kind report that was made by the
Parliamentary Panel regarding the effects that the pandemic had. It also recommended
“continuation of Virtual Courts even after the Covid-19 pandemic is over for
some identified categories,” because “digital justice is cheaper and faster”
and the court was “more a service than a place.”[6]
CHAPTER 2: VIRTUAL
HEARINGS
As a result of the mass covid
outbreak, virtual hearings are becoming a thing of the present more and more of
late. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual hearings were utilised for hearing
criminal cases where accused was not able to come to the court for some
security reasons. However, during the pandemic the courts had to adhere to
covid safety protocols and hence even the non-criminal cases were taken to the
online mode, and hearings were done through video conferencing. The Law
Ministry of India in association with the Supreme Court E-Committee and the
Department of Justice of India allocated funds in order to establish video
conference cabins in 2,506 courts all across the nation. In September 2020,
5.21 crore (over Rs. 5 million) was allocated for cabin setup, and an
additional Rs. 28.89 crore (nearly Rs. 29 million) was provided in October for the
purchases of equipments.[7]
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there
was no such hurry seen in adopting technology in the actions of the Indian
judiciary. Further, Indian judiciary even opposed the use of technology at one
point. Even before the COVID-19 crisis, video conferencing was being used for
court hearings, but there was disagreement within the judiciary regarding its
usefulness and suitability. The Supreme Court of India was also uncertain about
whether to E-hearing was to be supported or opposed for the process of justice
administration.[8]
CHAPTER 2.1. JUDICIAL PRECEDENT REGARDING VIRTUAL
HEARING
In State of Maharashtra v. Praful
Desai, the Bombay High Court recognised the use of technology. The court
held that the word ‘evidence’ includes electronic evidence, and that video
conferencing can be used to record evidence.[9] It
was noticed that technological advancements have enabled the potential of
virtual courts that are identical to actual courts.
According to official numbers, while
the number of new cases filed in both the higher and lower courts has reduced
since the country-wide lockdown commenced on March 25, the disposal rate has also
deteriorated as a consequence of the imposed closure of courts.[10]
The court made the following observations:
1) When both
the parties have trouble meeting and there is no one place where they can meet
conveniently then it may be acceptable to use video conferencing.
2) Supreme
court itself has used the technology in various cases to record evidence.
This judgement by the Supreme Court resulted
in video conferencing being used for the majority of transfer of petition
cases. However soon afterwards, a subsequent three-judge bench decision of the
Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh[11]
reversed the decision in the case of Veni
Nigam. The decision in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh was made by a
majority of 2:1. While the majority (then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice
AM Khanwilkar) were opposed to video conferencing, Justice DY Chandrachud
dissented and wrote an opinion in favour of video conferencing. Justice
Chandrachud observed that responsible use of technology improves access to
justice; and above all, contemporary technology is a facilitator, enabler, and
leveller.[12]
The judgement in Santhini v.
Vijaya Venketesh, to a significant part discouraged the usage of video
conferencing in conducting hearings, However, when the emergency of COVID-19 gripped
the nation, video conferencing became the norm.[13]
Due to the new conditions, the Supreme Court has begun to change its opinion on
technology: ‘In fact, the Supreme Court fast-forwarded court hearings via video
conferencing. The Supreme Court currently looks to be moving full steam ahead
and supporting e-hearings in E-judiciary, but despite the COVID-19 issue, it
took six years for that transition to occur in Indian justice administration.’ Moreover, in the case of All India
Association of Jurists v. High Court of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court held
that Virtual Hearing was a Fundamental right of the people, and it cannot be
taken away.[14]
CHAPTER
2.2: THE RESERVATIONS REGARDING
VIRTUAL
HEARINGS
While E-judiciary and virtual courts
are becoming a common sight day by day, the Indian judiciary still has some
reservations regarding the use of such technology. When the Parliamentary Panel
suggested the use of virtual courts in India, the Bar Council of India was not
all that thrilled about it. Representatives of the Bar expressed concerns
before the Parliamentary Panel, arguing that the virtual proceedings promote
tech-savvy advocates while denying lawyers the option to deliver their position
and adjust the course of arguments depending on shifting case dynamics.[15]
“An advocate gets to understand the mood of the judges and stands a better
chance of convincing them during physical hearings,” according to the Bar. Further they claimed that virtual hearings
have a psychological strain on both the judges and the advocates. Moreover, the
Bar claimed that whatever evidence the court gets through video conferencing
would distort the non-verbal cues that are important in determining a case such
as facial expressions, postures etc.
Further the access to these virtual
hearings is another issue. Some people in the judiciary claim that this
technological change will only be accepted by people who are financially well
off and privileged, and not every member of the law society.[16]
Even the Parliamentary Panel conceded that more than half of attorneys,
primarily in district and subordinate courts, lacked a laptop or a computer and
lacked the abilities essential for virtual hearings. Further, contention was
raised that Indian population does not have access to Internet. A stat show that
in 2007, the internet penetration in India was about 4%.[17]
Similarly, India’s internet access is rather unevenly spread. While TRAI data
shows that in 2019 urban India had an impressive subscription rate, while rural
India had only 27.57 subscriptions for every 100 people.
CHAPTER 3: ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE AND LAW
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a
fast-evolving field that is altering our interactions with technology and our
daily lives. AI is growing more widespread with each passing day, from voice assistants
like Siri and Alexa to self-driving cars. AI applications has the capability to
revolutionise nearly every sector. AI is a type of computer programme that
analyses complicated algorithms and interconnected networks in order to
generate additional sets of programmes with their own cognitive ability and
behaviour. It has become an essential component of contemporary technology,
making it practically faultless by analysing gaining knowledge from data,
automatically improving its programmes, and upgrading itself to become wiser
over time. AI is designed to think and act like a normal human would or
replicate the thinking patterns and functions that human beings relate with
human brains which includes functions like problem solving and cognitive learning.[18] As
we have discussed above, during the COVID-19 pandemic the case pendency rose to
a really high number and the Supreme Court ordered that virtual hearing be put
to use during those times. AI can be used for a plethora of instances, one of
them being automation. Automation refers to technology that carry out tasks
using rules. Most of these systems depend on decision trees, which are a form
of flowchart that asks a series of questions, the responses to which decide
which path is followed, until no more questions are asked, and a conclusion is
reached. A lawyer can design the decision tree, or a machine can derive it
algorithmically based on training data. These systems are typically used to
provide advice or can be put to use for legal drafting.[19]
According to some estimates use of AI in legal drafting can reduce the time
taken up in drafting by 85% thereby lessening the pressure on the lawyers which
would in turn result in a reduction of internal expenditures. [20] the
other use AI can put to, is decision making which also brings in its own sets
of problems and solutions.
CHAPTER 3.1: LEGAL DECISION MAKING AND AI
Predictability and precedent are two
things that are fundamental to any Law. What Artificial intelligence does is
that it aligns these two fundamental aspects of law. In law, precedent is a
judgement or decision of a court that can be referenced to in a subsequent
dispute as an example to legitimise picking a comparable case or aim of law in
the identical manner. Legal certainty is a crucial feature of the Dutch as well
as Indian legal systems. It believes that the government’s actions should come
as no surprise. AI can be fed all the cases that have come to a court and then
based on that it can work on precedence and give out orders.
Furthermore, using AI, UK experts
sought to predict ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) decisions. The
projections predicted if there would be a human rights violation with a 79
percent accuracy rate. The method for assessing information to create
expectations looks to be successful.[21] However,
here comes the debating point. Whether the legal decision making should be
solely left on the AI? Is AI capable enough to decide cases on its own? United
States is the shining example of the cases regarding AI as it is the place
where most of this technology is utilized. The Arnold Foundation approach,
which is employed in 21 US jurisdictions, analyses approximately 1.5 million
criminal cases to predict defendant behaviour during the pretrial phase.[22]
Similarly the bail amount in Florida is also being determined with the help of
AI.[23]
Further, the Estonian Ministry of Justice is financing a team to develop a
robot judge capable of adjudicating minor claims disputes under €7,000.[24][25]
Some scholars are of the opinion that
AI technologies will eradicate any preconceived notions and mental shortcuts that
are inherent in human judgement and reasoning.[26]
This acts as a plausible argument for why artificial intelligence systems have
been given much too much power to handle and solve primarily societal (rather
than technological) challenges in developed countries. Further Some scholars
are even exploring employing AI to help reduce the solitary confinement issue
in the United States by utilising smart assistants such as Amazon’s Alexa as a
form of “confinement buddy” for convicts. Researchers revealed that an
algorithm could predict whether a suspect will run or re-offend better than a
human judge in the research involving 1.36 million pre-trial detention cases.[27] So, taking these foreign instances into
account, one might assume that AI can take the place of a human judge. However,
there are some drawbacks to this as well.
CHAPTER 3.2: HUMANS VERSUS AI
In a study conducted in 2011 in USA,
it was found that near the end of sessions, judges are more likely to make
decisions ‘by default’ and deny probation, whereas the judges are more probable
to grant probation immediately following eating.[28] The
supporters of AI would take these instances of bias and say implementation of
AI in the judiciary would make the courts bias free. That statement might not
necessarily be true. That is because the data that is fed to the AI to function
is itself not bias free.
Even formalised synthetic ideas like
as averages, standard deviations, probability, identical categories or
'equivalences,' correlation, regression, and sampling are the result of a
historical gestation marked by pauses, retranslations, and opposing interpretations.
Cleaning such cultural and historical weight and tendencies from data, on the
other hand, may not be feasible or desirable. AI inherently incorporates human
biases. Because AI is fed language data that humans use, it will invariably
pick up on existing prejudices in a society. Now it is possible that we de-bias
the AI but that doing so would result in “fairness through blindness.” The
Indian constitutional and criminal law ideas already reflect judgements
regarding the relevance of opposing principles such as efficiency and
fairness. For example, it is a common
phrase used in India that goes ‘it is preferable to let 100 guilty people
escape, then punish one innocent person.’ This cannot be learned by AI. It can
learn how the judicial precedents operate but the human conscious and
jurisprudence cannot be taught.
CHAPTER 4: IMPACT
OF TECHNOLOGY ON JUDICIARY
Virtual hearings are becoming common
day by day. In fact, numerous district and high courts have created their own
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) so as to govern how the virtual proceedings
would be held. These SOPs in tandem with the trial-and-error method used by the
courts have greatly made the process of virtual hearings more efficient and
will continue to do so over time.[29] In
the case of Prashant Bhushan and anr.[30] The
Supreme Court observed that from 23.3.2020 to 4.8.2020, the total number of
sittings on the various benches was 879. During this time, the Court heard
12748 cases and 686 writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution. Since then, the number of virtual hearings has expanded
significantly, with all types of things being listed for virtual hearings as
courts have learnt to better adapt to the shift in processes. As of February
2021, there has been 52,353 virtual hearings.[31]
During the pandemic, approximately 45.37 lakh cases were brought in front of
the district courts, while 20.60 lakh cases were heard by the High Court.[32]
However, the pendency of cases has
increased. On 1 April 2020, the total cases pending in the Supreme Court were
61,142.[33]
On 1 April 2023, the total cases pending in the supreme court are 68,847[34].
That is a 12.6% increase in case pendency. To resolve this issue steps were
taken by the Supreme Court E-committee[35]
and AI Committee. Aside from electronic filing rules and the provision of a
single website to handle these filings across courts, the committee announced that
they are in the process of making an intelligence system that will aid in
making databased decision making and will also help with registries when the
judge has to prioritise or schedule cases, which will then lead to greater
predictability which will inturn help in making the court hall and the people
inside, more efficient.[36] Similarly,
Supreme Court’s AI Committee aims to improve access to information and to
achieve that technology is being used to translate Supreme Court languages. The
goal is now to employ AI to help judges with legal research with the purpose of
lowering pendency and boosting the efficiency of the system. The Supreme
Court’s AI committee has previously created and deployed a neural translation
tool (SUVAAS) and, more recently, a court administration tool (SUPACE) in the
last two years.
CONLCUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The inclusion of new technology like
AI and virtual hearings is a step in the direction of future. The main barrier
to guaranteeing that these technological advancements are employed in a
sustainable paradigm for judicial processes is a lack of internet connection
and infrastructure to access e-courts and e-filing systems. Only 40% of Indians
have internet access in 2022 (which is significantly higher than 7% in 2007 but
still not enough), 30% lack basic literacy, and nearly 90% lack digital
literacy.[37] To
guarantee that the efforts made during the epidemic are sustained, lawyers,
litigants, judges, and administrative employees must all have access to and
understand digital technology. At the same time, technology and infrastructure
should be built to guarantee that virtual hearings are held utilising a
standardised, bespoke video conferencing platform, particularly for courts. Using
technology to create a court platform, such as Zoom or Teams, might enhance the
participation of junior and assisting counsels in delivering their arguments, as
well as secure and timely file exchange. The courts might appoint officials to
investigate the technology and work with specialists to hasten its deployment.
Administrative duties such as patent evaluations, hearing scheduling, deed
registration, and compiling cause lists might be handled by AI, but human
judgement should remain an important part of the decision-making process. Further
if virtual hearings are to become the new norm, then there is a need for an
overhaul of the current laws regarding the presence and attendance of parties.
In Hani Nishad v. State of UP[38],
the accused was facing charges in 31 proceedings. Given these factors, the
Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to submit a single personal bond that
would be valid for all 31 instances. In the context of investor fraud cases,
the Supreme Court has ruled in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Rajesh Syal[39]
and Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India & Ors.[40]
that each individual investor has the right to file a separate FIR, which
results in a distinct charge sheet. These instances would lead to the accused travelling
to so many different jurisdictions which would lead to first the harassment of
the accused, and second the wasting of time of the courts. Section 317 of the
CrPC allows the trial court to waive attendance only with the subjective
approval of the trial court, and only if the Court believes that the accused’s
personal attendance is “not necessary in the interests of justice.”[41]
As a result, unless it is determined that the accused’s actual attendance is
“not necessary in the interests of justice,” it may be impossible for the
accused to seek virtual hearing and attend the trial court procedure remotely.
Several nations, like the United
States, the United Kingdom, and Estonia, have already integrated AI into their
legal systems; nevertheless, India should proceed with caution before using
this technique to make legal decisions. AI-based judgements are mostly
dependent on mechanical and objective algorithms, which may be incapable of
efficiently considering and distinguishing diverse contextual elements. As a
result, it may be more acceptable for AI to function as an auxiliary tool while
the human brain continues to play a fundamental part in making legal decisions.[42]
Hence, the author’s hypothesis that
the use of AI and virtual trials has the potential to enhance the
decision-making process in the Indian judiciary system, reduce case backlogs,
and improve access to justice is proven true but only after the government and
the judiciary addresses the various challenges and limitations mentioned above.
[1] “Covid-19 And the Revamping Of The
Indian Legal System - Operational Impacts and Strategy - India,” available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/operational-impacts-and-strategy/1068670/covid-19-and-the-revamping-of-the-indian-legal-system.
[2] Mark A.
Cohen, “COVID-19 And The Reformation Of Legal Culture” Forbesavailable at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2020/04/14/covid-19-and-the-reformation-of-legal-culture/
(last visited May 2, 2023).
[3] In times of crisis, legal systems
may prioritize maintaining established legal norms and procedures, rather than
making rapid changes that could have unintended consequences. This caution can
be seen in the way that legal systems have responded to challenges such as war,
terrorism, and pandemics, where there has been a tendency to rely on existing
laws and regulations rather than enacting new ones.
[4] Maneesh
Chhibber, “How lockdown has hit judiciary, in numbers — April cases fall to 82k
from 14 lakh avg in 2019” ThePrint, 2020available at:
https://theprint.in/judiciary/how-lockdown-has-hit-judiciary-in-numbers-april-cases-fall-to-82k-from-14-lakh-avg-in-2019/413666/
(last visited May 3, 2023).
[5] Order of the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, No. 5/Spl./RG/Misc., issued
by Registrar General, 11 April 2020.
[6] Parliament of India. Rajya Sabha
Secretariat, Interim Report on the Functioning of the Virtual Courts/Court
proceedings through video conferencing, 11 September 2020, available at https://sansad.in/rs,
accessed 3 May 2023.
[7] Editorial, “2.5K courts to be equipped
for online hearing”, The Tribune, Dec. 7, 2020.
[8] Jyoti
Rattan and Vijay Rattan, “‘The COVID-19 Crisis – the New Challenges Before the
Indian Justice and Court Administration System,’” 12 International Journal
for Court Administration 11 (2021).
[9] The State Of Maharashtra v. Dr.
Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601.
[10] Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish
Nigam, (2014) Transfer petition (CIVIL) NO. 1912 OF 2014.
[11] Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh,
(2017) Transfer petition (CIVIL) NO.1278 OF 2016.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ejaz
Maqbool Hakim Akriti Chaubey,Mohammad Isa, “The Supreme Court is online: Pros,
cons and the way forward for hearings by video conferencing” Bar and Bench -
Indian Legal news, 2020available at:
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-supreme-court-is-online (last visited
May 3, 2023).
[14] All India Association of
Jurists v. High Court of Uttarakhand, (2021) Writ Petition (Civil)
NO. 941 OF 2021.
[15] “Retain virtual courts post
COVID-19, too: Parliamentary panel, Sharma, Pratul”, The Week, 2020,
accessed 3 May 2023.
[16] “Virtual
Courts: A sustainable option?,”available at:
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/virtual-courts-a-sustainable-option (last
visited May 5, 2023).
[17] “India:
internet penetration rate 2022,” Statistaavailable at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/792074/india-internet-penetration-rate/
(last visited May 5, 2023).
[18] Stuart J.
Russell and Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach,
Third edition, Global edition (Pearson, Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York
San Francisco Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan
Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong
Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo, 2016).
[21] Nikolaos
Aletras et al., “Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human
Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective,” 2 PeerJ Computer Science
e93 (2016).
[22] “Judges
Replacing Conjecture With Formula for Bail - The New York Times,”available
at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/turning-the-granting-of-bail-into-a-science.html
(last visited May 5, 2023).
[23] Ganesh
Sahu, Anshu Goyal and Satyabrat Sahoo, “A Review on Uses of Machine Learning in
Judicial Court,” 7 (2022).
[24] “Can AI
Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So | WIRED,”available at:
https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/ (last
visited May 5, 2023).
[25] In principle, both sides would
submit papers and other relevant evidence, and the AI will provide a decision
that may be appealed to a human judge. Estonia's 1.3 million residents already
have a national ID card and are used to online services like e-voting and
digital tax filing, so a robot judge could work.
[26] Aleš Završnik, “Criminal justice,
artificial intelligence systems, and human rights” 20 ERA Forum 567 (2020).
[27] Jon
Kleinberg, Himabindu
Lakkaraju,
et al., “Human Decisions and Machine Predictions*” The Quarterly Journal of
Economics (2017).
[28] Shai
Danziger, Jonathan Levav, et al., “Extraneous factors in judicial decisions,”
108 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 6889–92 (2011).
[29] Shreeyash U. Lalit and Raveena
Lalit, “The New Normal in the Legal Profession: Embracing Technology” Legal
Education and Legal Profession During and After COVID-19 237 (2022).
[30] Prashant Bhushan and Anr.,
(2020) SCC Online SC 407.
[31] “SC is
global leader in virtual hearings, says law ministry,” The Times of India,
17 February 2021.
[33] Stats taken from ‘Monthly Pending
Cases: Supreme Court.’ https://main.sci.gov.in/statistics. Accessed 4 May 2023.
[34] Ibid.
[35] The Supreme Court e-committee was
formed in 2004 by an order of the Ministry of Law and Justice in response to a
suggestion by the then Chief Justice of India.
[36] E-committee Supreme Court of India
(n 51).
[37]“India:
internet penetration rate 2022,” Statistaavailable at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/792074/india-internet-penetration-rate/
(last visited May 5, 2023).
[38] Hani Nishad v. State of UP,
SLP (Crl) No 8915/2018.
[39] State of Punjab & Anr. V.
Rajesh Syal, AIR 2002 SC 3687.
[40] Narinderjit Singh Sahni v Union
of India & Ors, WP (Crl) No 245/2000.
[41] Supra 31.
[42] Ganesh
Sahu, Anshu Goyal, et al., “A Review on Uses of Machine Learning in Judicial
Court,” 7 (2022).
Article Information
REVOLUTIONIZING THE INDIAN LEGAL LANDSCAPE: PREDICTINING THE IMPACT OF AI AND VIRTUAL HEARINGS
Authors: ARYAMAN KESHAV
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/05/10
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.