Legal Considerations in AI Implementation: Insights from the Supreme Court's Transcription Initiative

The Supreme Court of India’s recent move to introduce Artificial Intelligence (AI) for live transcription of court proceedings is a landmark moment in the history of our judicial system. In February 2023, during a Constitution Bench hearing, AI was used to transcribe courtroom discussions in real time—a step aimed at improving transparency and efficiency. While this is a welcome sign of progress, it also brings with it important legal and ethical questions that need careful consideration.

AI in courtrooms sounds promising. It can save time, reduce dependence on human stenographers, and make records of proceedings more accessible for judges, lawyers, and litigants. But it is important to remember that courts deal with complex, sensitive, and often emotional matters. Simply adding technology to the system without addressing the legal implications can create new challenges instead of

solving old ones.

The first issue that arises is the accuracy of AI-generated transcripts. Courtrooms are full of interruptions, cross-talk, heavy legal terminology, and multiple speakers. AI may misinterpret accents, legal terms, or even identify the wrong speaker. If such a transcript is relied upon in appeals or for legal arguments, a small error could lead to serious consequences. That’s why human review must remain a part of the process. AI should assist, not replace, trained professionals.

Another critical area is data privacy. Court proceedings—especially those dealing with family disputes, sexual offences, or national security—often involve highly sensitive information. If these details are transcribed and stored digitally, they could be vulnerable to leaks or misuse, especially if managed by third-party tech providers. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, data must be handled carefully and lawfully. Legal teams must ensure that strong data protection measures are in place before rolling out AI transcription tools on a larger scale.

There’s also the question of who owns the data. When a court proceeding is transcribed by an AI tool, does the judiciary own the transcript? Or does the software provider have any claim? Can media outlets or third parties request access? Without clear rules, this can create confusion and even legal disputes. Legal departments must work with policymakers to define ownership, usage rights, and restrictions clearly from the outset.

Another area of concern is algorithmic bias. AI tools are trained on data, and if that data is not diverse or representative, the system may fail to understand certain languages, dialects, or speech patterns. For example, voices of women or regional speakers might be misread more often than others. In a country as diverse as India, this is a serious concern. The legal system must ensure that the AI used in courts is inclusive, well-tested, and regularly audited for fairness.

The success of this initiative also depends on how well court officials, judges, and lawyers adapt to the new system. Training sessions, proper user guides, and constant support will be necessary to ensure that technology is being used properly and ethically. AI can help speed up judicial processes, but only if everyone involved knows how to use it correctly and responsibly.

Looking ahead, this initiative could inspire similar changes in trial courts and tribunals across the country. However, those courts often face greater resource constraints and higher caseloads. Introducing AI without first strengthening basic infrastructure would be risky. Any expansion should be done gradually, with proper feedback and legal oversight at every stage.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s transcription project is a step in the right direction. It shows that the Indian judiciary is ready to embrace technology, but it also reminds us that technology in law must always serve justice—not efficiency alone. With proper checks, clear rules, and a strong commitment to privacy and fairness, AI can be a powerful tool in strengthening our legal system. But its use must be guided by caution, not just enthusiasm.