CJI Surya Kant, German court chief discuss AI, judicial ties

CJI Surya Kant, German federal court chief discuss AI, cross-border mediation, judicial cooperation

New Delhi, August 27

The meeting was held on Wednesday at the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe. At the outset, CJI congratulated the Federal Court of Justice on the establishment of its Seventh Criminal Senate in Leipzig from July 1, 2026, describing it as a timely institutional response to the growing criminal appellate workload.

The CJI noted that India and Germany have different judicial structures and legal traditions. "India follows a common-law tradition with one integrated judicial hierarchy, while Germany has a civil-law system with separate branches of federal jurisdiction. These differences make the exchange particularly useful. They allow us to compare how our institutions deal with the same practical concerns, including appellate workload, consistency of case law, timely disposal, judicial administration and access to justice," he said.

The discussions were structured around three broad themes--technology and artificial intelligence in the administration of justice, cross-border mediation and dispute resolution, and the possibility of deepening bilateral judicial cooperation through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

On India's judicial structure, Justice Kant highlighted that the country has a single integrated judicial system comprising District and Trial Courts, 25 High Courts and the Supreme Court at the apex.

He also underlined the distinctive constitutional role of the High Courts, including their writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, as well as the Supreme Court's dual role as the country's final appellate court and highest constitutional court.

The CJI pointed to Article 141 of the Constitution, under which the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, and referred to the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment and its basic-structure doctrine as an important feature of India's constitutional jurisprudence.

Justice Surya Kant also noted that, as of July 1, 2026, the Supreme Court had a working strength of 35 judges against a sanctioned strength of 38, while the High Courts collectively had 781 judges against a sanctioned strength of 1,122.

Comparing the two systems, he noted that Germany's Federal Court of Justice operates through 13 Civil Senates and seven Criminal Senates, allowing for greater subject specialisation, whereas India's Supreme Court follows a more generalist model based on subject rosters.

On technology, the CJI said India's objective was not merely to make courts more technological but to make them more accessible, transparent and responsive.

He highlighted the ongoing Phase III of the eCourts Mission Mode Project, which has an approved outlay of Rs 7,210 crore, and noted recent technological initiatives including a single sign-on portal, electronic delivery of summons, integration of eCourts with the ePrison system and version 4.0 of the eCourts Services mobile application.

Justice Kant also referred to AI-enabled tools such as SUPACE and LegRAA for legal research, SUVAS for translating judgments into 16 regional languages and SuSahay, which provides citizens with a conversational interface for accessing case-related information.

He stressed that these technologies are intended to reduce repetitive work and assist the justice system rather than determine judicial outcomes.

"Artificial intelligence may augment judicial reasoning, but it cannot substitute the judicial conscience," the CJI said.

He further noted that proposed regulations of the Supreme Court's AI Committee envisage administrative uses of AI, including scheduling, transcription and translation, while excluding functions such as assessment of witness credibility, flight risk, recidivism and bail eligibility.

The discussions also covered Germany's electronic case files, the E-Justice Council, the Bund-Laender Commission and the proposed Federal Justice Cloud. Justice Surya Kant said both systems shared the principle that judicial decisions must remain with judges and legally authorised judicial officers despite increasing digitalisation.

Mediation was another key area of discussion, with Justice Kant describing its promotion as one of his priorities as Chief Justice of India.

He highlighted the Mediation Act, 2023, which provides India with a dedicated statutory framework for mediation, including provisions recognising international mediation and permitting online mediation

The CJI also discussed the growing use of online dispute resolution and hybrid models such as med-arb-med, particularly in cross-border commercial disputes.

He said arbitration and mediation should be viewed as complementary mechanisms, with arbitration determining legal rights while mediation allows parties to arrive at solutions they are willing to accept and implement.

Justice Kant also highlighted institutional mediation centres, Lok Adalats, Digital Lok Adalats and the Supreme Court's recent Special Lok Adalat initiative, Samadhan Samaroh, as part of India's expanding dispute-resolution ecosystem.

He suggested that India and Germany could exchange experience in cross-border commercial mediation, recognition and enforcement of mediated settlements, and training of mediators dealing with India-Germany commercial disputes.

The CJI welcomed a concept note prepared by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg proposing a structured judicial exchange between India and Germany.

The proposed cooperation could include reciprocal study visits, workshops and observation of court proceedings, with a thematic focus on technology and AI, cross-border mediation, commercial and business law and digitalisation of judicial processes.

Justice Kant also proposed cooperation between the registries and technical teams of the two judiciaries in areas including e-filing, electronic records, listing practices, judgment publication, anonymisation, cybersecurity and knowledge-management systems.

He suggested that the National Judicial Academy of India and relevant German federal and state institutions could collaborate on programmes concerning digital evidence, cybercrime, cross-border commercial law and the ethical use of technology.

As a concrete next step, the CJI proposed that both sides designate institutional points of contact to develop the discussions into a structured programme, with an MoU or another appropriate arrangement to be considered after the relevant authorities determine its scope, frequency, participants, confidentiality requirements and working language.

Concluding the meeting, Justice Kant said both judiciaries share the responsibility of preserving judicial independence and public confidence while adapting to new forms of litigation and changing expectations of access to justice.

He emphasised that technology and administrative reform can support this responsibility but cannot replace careful adjudication, human judgment and fidelity to law.

— ANI