AI-based resolution of cheque bounce cases is feasible: Ex CJI Chandrachud

Ex Chief Justice of India Justice DY Chandrachud on Saturday said that artificial intelligence may be deployed to decide limited categories of litigation, including cheque dishonour disputes, given their volume and transactional nature, suggesting that such experimentation can ease judicial pendency without eroding fairness.

He was speaking at the IBA Litigation and ADR Symposium session themed “The benefits and impact of artificial intelligence on dispute resolution – is India’s Grand Trunk Road warning ‘speed thrills but kills’ at all relevant in this context?”, where he delivered the keynote address on technology, constitutionalism and the future of dispute resolution.

The session was chaired by Carlo Portatadino of Tombari D’Angelo e Associati, Milan, who also co-chairs the IBA Litigation Committee. The panel comprised Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate (New Delhi); Mahesh Rai of Drew & Napier (Singapore); and Professor Tania Sourdin, Professor Emerita, University of Newcastle, Australia.

Justice Chandrachud said India must recognise the distinction between areas where AI can accelerate adjudication and those where human oversight remains indispensable. In that backdrop, he pointed to the staggering number of cheque bounce matters pending across Indian magistrate courts and suggested that an AI-enabled adjudicatory model could be considered for such disputes.

“One of the largest categories of pending cases in India, for instance, are the cheque-bounce cases,” Justice Chandrachud observed, adding that it was possible to contemplate automated handling of disputes where “the outcomes do not have a very significant impact on basic or fundamental human rights."

The statement came in response to a question about jurisdictions such as the UAE moving traffic offences, small-ticket claims and cheque dishonour cases entirely to AI-based systems. Justice Chandrachud pointed out that India has had its own experience with automation through Delhi’s virtual courts, which absorbed routine traffic cases earlier handled by dozens of magistrates.

That reallocation, he said, allowed judicial officers to focus on matters demanding meaningful adjudication. A similar approach, he suggested, could be extended to cheque dishonour litigation, noting that the nature of such disputes lends itself to standardised resolution.

However, Justice Chandrachud cautioned that housing and rent control litigation must remain under human supervision given the risk of eviction or displacement of vulnerable tenants. He also identified motor accident compensation claims as a space where AI could be introduced optionally — binding insurers while giving victims the choice to accept an instant award or seek judicial adjudication.

The former CJI tied these ideas back to the symposium’s framing, noting that efficiency is increasingly a constitutional value but cannot be allowed to eclipse access and fairness. India’s emphasis on maximal procedural guarantees and access to justice had, he said, sometimes created a system unable to deliver outcomes in time.

Picking up the efficiency theme from the panel discussion, Justice Chandrachud agreed that “efficiency must itself also be a constitutional value”, warning that if justice administration is not efficient, “then the danger is that, you know, you are not giving timely justice to those who need it the most.” He said this was the “great danger” he felt the system now faced, noting that “we have virtually rendered our court system dysfunctional” in an eagerness to allow for the fullest access to justice and the widest procedural rights.

At some stage, he said, “we have to balance the two” and “allow for some degree of injustice within the system, so as to make the system overall efficient,” cautioning that otherwise, “in our effort to correct every error, there is a danger that we render every court dysfunctional.”

Justice Chandrachud also reflected on how AI will reshape the legal profession, describing it as a disruptor that will require resilience from lawyers and adjudicators. While acknowledging concerns over replacement of some traditional functions, he characterised the shift as a form of creative disruption that can expand access and relieve judges of repetitive burdens if safeguards are properly designed.

Ultimately, he stressed the need for explainable AI systems that allow contestation, safeguard dignity and enhance rather than replace judgment. Technology, he said, must remain a means to accelerate justice, not a substitute for its values.