Overview : In an inaugural address at the UIA India Chapter seminar on “Artificial Intelligence – Prevention and Resolution of Disputes”, held at the Karnataka Judicial Academy in Bengaluru, the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asserted that adjudication is an exercise of conscience, not computation, and that AI cannot replace human judges. Key Developments AI can assist in pattern analysis, language translation and case‑management, but it cannot understand human suffering or bear accountability. The CJI warned against any system where the final decision on liberty or life rests with a pre‑programmed machine. He highlighted the role of SUVAS in improving access to justice. AI‑enabled tools are reshaping mediation and ODR , making them faster and more affordable. The CJI stressed the need for human oversight, verification and transparent governance of any AI tool used in courts. Important Facts 1. AI can identify patterns in large legal databases, helping judges locate relevant precedents quickly. 2. SUVAS is already operational, addressing a major access‑to‑justice barrier. 3. AI‑driven mediation platforms can analyse negotiation histories to suggest settlement frameworks based on past outcomes. 4. The CJI cautioned that AI may occasionally generate inaccurate or non‑existent information, making human verification indispensable. UPSC Relevance The speech touches upon several GS topics: Polity – the constitutional role of the judiciary, the limits of delegating sovereign functions to machines, and the need for legislative safeguards; Technology & Governance – the integration of AI in public institutions, ethical considerations, and the balance between efficiency and accountability; Ethics – the moral responsibility of judges versus algorithmic decision‑making. Understanding these dimensions helps aspirants answer questions on judicial reforms, e‑governance, and the ethical use of emerging technologies. Way Forward Formulate a statutory framework that defines the permissible scope of AI in judicial processes, ensuring human accountability remains paramount. Invest in capacity‑building for judges to effectively use AI‑assisted research tools while retaining ultimate decision‑making authority. Strengthen data‑quality standards and audit mechanisms for AI applications to prevent misinformation. Promote pilot projects in AI‑enabled translation (like SUVAS ) and ODR, with periodic review by an independent oversight committee. Encourage interdisciplinary research involving law, computer science and ethics to evolve AI tools that complement, not replace, human judgment. In sum, while technology can streamline the justice delivery system, the compass of law will continue to be guided by human conscience, empathy and accountability.