Artificial Intelligence (AI) can assist judges, lawyers and citizens but it cannot replace the human element behind rendering justice, Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant opined.

Hence, while technology can guide, the human must govern and must be the final arbiter in the justice dispensation system, he said.

“Artificial intelligence may assist in researching authorities, generating drafts, or highlighting inconsistencies, but it cannot perceive the tremor in a witness’s voice, the anguish behind a petition, or the moral weight of a decision. Let us be crystal clear: we are not replacing the lawyer or the judge, we are simply augmenting their reach and refining their capacity to serve. Let technology be the guide and the human govern,” he stated.

He also cautioned against over-reliance on AI.

“AI tools are not infallible. They can generate inaccuracies, hallucinations or reflect latent biases of their training data. Human oversight is non-negotiable. The lawyer or judge must always remain the final arbiter, checking and validating the AI output,” he said.

The judge stressed that while technology may be a powerful ally, justice will always remain a profoundly human enterprise.

"The essence of our calling lies not in data or algorithms, but in conscience and compassion. The judge’s discernment, the advocate’s reasoning, the litigant’s dignity, and the empathy that animates every fair trial - these are the living fibres of justice that no machine can replicate," he said.

Justice Kant said the legal profession stands at a “decisive moment” where it must learn to balance technological progress with the enduring human values that define justice. He cautioned that while data may inform decisions, it must never dictate them.

He reminded the audience that the test of any technological reform lies in how inclusively it serves citizens, not merely in how efficiently it runs.

“If technology enables a villager to file a plea without travelling miles, if it ensures that a poor litigant is heard without delay, if it helps a court communicate its reasoning in a language that people understand - then it has truly served its purpose,” he said.

The judge was delivering the keynote address on “Technology in the Aid of the Legal Profession – A Global Perspective” at the Bar Association of Sri Lanka’s annual law conference.

He described technology as a “force multiplier” that has transformed the practice of law and the administration of justice from courtrooms to classrooms.

Explaining how this transformation has reshaped legal work across the world, Justice Surya Kant said that what began as a modest digitisation of paperwork has now evolved into an ecosystem powered by artificial intelligence, analytics and automation.

He said the challenge before the legal community is not whether to adopt technology, but how to do so responsibly.

“It is not about replacing human judgment. It is about amplifying its reach, precision and purpose,” he said.

Justice Kant highlighted how technology has transformed court administration by introducing e-filing, digital registries and online hearings. He pointed out that virtual hearings and case management systems have made access to justice more transparent and efficient.

He also spoke about the transformative impact of technology on law students and young scholars. in this regard, he noted that online repositories, digital internships and live-streamed court proceedings have made legal education more interactive and globally connected.

At the same time, Justice Kant warned of the risks that accompany the rapid adoption of digital tools. He identified four major challenges - digital literacy gaps, data privacy, AI bias and institutional resistance to change.

He said the first challenge was ensuring that all members of the legal system could keep pace with digital progress.

“This digital divide risks exacerbating inequality: some legal actors may leap ahead, while many may be left behind,” he said, urging bar councils and judicial academies to invest in training and capacity building.

He said that as new tools and innovations reshape how justice is delivered, members of the legal fraternity must stay flexible and willing to learn, adapting to change without losing sight of their core values.

“New models will emerge, systems will evolve, and challenges will multiply. Our duty is to remain learners, open, adaptive, reflective and ready to embrace what aids in the pursuit of justice and discard what does not. For, at the end of the day, technology may illuminate the path - but it is humanity that must lead the way,” he said.

Turning to privacy concerns, he underlined the need for lawyers to safeguard client confidentiality in an age of data-driven practice.

“Lawyers deal in trust and therefore the confidentiality, privilege, data integrity, and cybersecurity of their clients must remain sacrosanct,” he said.

He also cautioned against over-reliance on AI.

“AI tools are not infallible. They can generate inaccuracies, hallucinations or reflect latent biases of their training data. Human oversight is non-negotiable. The lawyer or judge must always remain the final arbiter, checking and validating the AI output,” he said.

Justice Surya Kant then urged bar associations and judiciaries across South Asia to collaborate on ethical and technological standards.

He proposed the creation of a “legal tech consortium” comprising judges, practitioners, academics and technologists to share best practices, regulatory models and training programmes across jurisdictions.

He said India’s experience with e-courts, live-streaming, translation portals and AI-assisted transcription tools could offer valuable insights to neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka.

He added that legal education should evolve to prepare young lawyers for a technology-driven future. Law schools, he said, must embed courses on data science, AI ethics and computational law into their curricula.

Justice Kant concluded by urging the legal fraternity to shape the digital transition rather than resist it.

“We can resist technology and risk stagnation, or we can shape and guide it, embedding our legal and ethical values within its design, so that it strengthens, not supplants, justice,” he said.