At a time when courts continue to struggle with case backlog and questions around access, Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah has pushed for a structural change, calling for a Supreme Court bench in south India.
Speaking at the 22nd Biennial State Level Conference of Judicial Officers, he said the distance from Delhi often makes it harder for people in the southern states to approach the top court.
“There is also a strong and compelling need to improve accessibility to the highest court of the land. The establishment of a Supreme Court bench in South India would go a long way in ensuring justice,” he said.
The conference, attended by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Supreme Court judges B. V. Nagarathna and Aravind Kumar, and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, focused on how the judiciary is dealing with artificial intelligence.
Siddaramaiah said the legal system is entering a phase where technology will shape how cases are handled. “We stand today at a defining juncture where law and technology are no longer separate domains, but interconnected forces shaping governance, rights, and the very nature of justice itself.”
He spoke about the promise of AI but also pointed to the risks.
“Artificial Intelligence is emerging as a transformative force that challenges how we interpret evidence, how we understand facts, and how decisions are arrived at. It offers immense promise, aiding faster legal research, improved case management, and the possibility of reducing pendency through intelligent systems,” he said.
At the same time, he flagged concerns.
“Yet, it also raises profound concerns. Algorithmic bias can undermine the guarantee of equality before law. Opaque systems may weaken the doctrine of reasoned decisions, which lies at the heart of our judicial process,” he said.
He stressed that technology cannot be allowed to influence judicial independence.
“Judicial independence, which is the cornerstone of our democracy, must be preserved not only from external pressures but also from subtle technological dependence,” he said. “The authority of a judge must never be overshadowed by the authority of an algorithm.”
On delays in courts, he said technology alone will not fix the problem.
“Pendency of cases continues to be a serious concern that affects the timely delivery of justice. While technology can provide tools to address this, it must be complemented by systemic reforms through strengthening infrastructure, increasing judicial capacity, and modernising court processes,” he said.
He also pointed to new challenges emerging from AI-generated material. “The emergence of AI-generated evidence presents new challenges for our legal system,” he said. “Deepfakes, synthetic data, and machine-generated content compel us to revisit established doctrines relating to admissibility, burden of proof, and authenticity.”
Courts, he said, will have to decide what can be treated as reliable evidence going forward. “The courts will increasingly be called upon to determine what constitutes reliable evidence in a digital age. In doing so, we must ensure that truth remains grounded in verifiability and integrity, not merely in technological sophistication.”
He said the judiciary will have a role in shaping how AI is regulated. “Through well-established constitutional doctrines such as due process, proportionality, and the right to privacy, our courts will determine the contours within which AI must operate,” he said. “The judiciary, therefore, is not only a user of technology but also the ethical compass that will guide its deployment in society.”
He also spoke about the possible benefits, such as AI-assisted research and blockchain for secure records, but added a word of caution.
“However, these innovations must be adopted with care, ensuring that efficiency does not come at the cost of fairness,” he said.
He said judges will need to adapt to these changes.
“In this transformation, the capacity of our judicial institutions becomes critical. Judges of the future must be equipped not only with legal acumen but also with a clear understanding of technological systems,” he said.
Raising concerns about inequality, he said AI systems can reflect existing biases.
“The question is how artificial intelligence intersects with the fundamental principles of equality and social justice. If not carefully designed and regulated, AI systems can replicate and even amplify existing social inequalities,” he said.
He ended by drawing a line between technology and human judgment.
“No algorithm can replace the human capacity for empathy, the wisdom that comes from lived experience, or the moral reasoning that defines judicial decision-making,” he said. “Technology can assist, but it cannot replace the human conscience that lies at the heart of justice.”
He added that the Karnataka government will continue to work on judicial infrastructure and digital systems while keeping fairness in focus.