ABSTRACT

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into judicial processes has generated significant interest in the Indian legal landscape. Among them pioneering initiatives are SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), an AI-based translation tool, and SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency), an AI-driven case management system. These tools aim to improve accessibility, efficiency, and transparency in the judiciary by addressing linguistic diversity and case backlog. In contrast, the United States employs COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions), a risk assessment tool that predicts the likelihood of reoffending to guide bail, parole, and sentencing decisions. However, its use has sparked debates over transparency and algorithmic bias.

The importance of this inquiry lies in the intersection of law, technology, and jurisprudence, where the infusion of AI raises critical questions regarding constitutional values, judicial discretion, and the balance between efficiency and justice. While studies have explored AI in global judicial systems, there exists a noticeable research gap in assessing the jurisprudential underpinnings and constitutional implications of India-specific AI tools like SUVAS and SUPACE.

The core aim of this study is to examine the following issues: To what extent can AI tools like SUVAS and SUPACE enhance judicial functioning without undermining judicial independence? How do these tools align with principles of natural justice, constitutional morality, and the philosophy of law in India  and a comparative assessment of these tools with COMPAS.The key message is that while SUVAS and SUPACE hold immense promise for democratizing access to justice and easing systemic burdens, their deployment must be guided by constitutional safeguards and jurisprudential scrutiny to ensure that technology complements, rather than compromises, the essence of judicial reasoning.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary, SUVAS, SUPACE, COMPAS, Indian Judiciary, Jurisprudence, Judicial Independence, Access to Justice, Constitutional Morality, Legal Technology.

I. Introduction:

In an era where digital transformation is reshaping governance and institutions globally, the Indian judiciary has also begun to embrace Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance both efficiency and accessibility. With more than five crore cases currently pending across different levels of courts, the need for technological intervention has become both necessary and pressing. Recognizing this challenge, the Supreme Court of India has taken proactive steps by introducing AI-powered tools aimed at reducing procedural delays and improving access to justice.

Two landmark initiatives in this direction are SUVAS (Supreme Court VidhikAnuvaad Software) and SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Courts Efficiency). SUVAS, launched in 2019, is a machine learning-based translation software designed to bridge India’s linguistic diversity by translating judgments and legal documents from English into nine regional languages. This initiative strengthens the constitutional promise of equal access to justice, ensuring that litigants and citizens across linguistic backgrounds can engage meaningfully with judicial processes. SUPACE, launched in April 2021, is an AI-assisted research and case management tool that helps judges analyze case files, identify relevant precedents, and generate concise summaries. By reducing the burden of administrative tasks, SUPACE allows judges to devote greater attention to reasoning and adjudication.

On the other hand, the United States has adopted COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions), an artificial intelligence–based risk assessment tool. Developed by Northpointe (now Equivant), COMPAS predicts the likelihood of a defendant reoffending by analyzing factors such as criminal history, personal background, and responses to questionnaires. Its scores are used by courts to inform bail, parole, and sentencing decisions. While COMPAS represents a more outcome-oriented use of AI in the judiciary, its opacity and potential biases have sparked debates around fairness, due process, and equal protection under the law.