Navigating through the Implications of AI on Legal System

Paper Code: AIJACLAV29RP2025

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: Feb 10, 2026

Citation: Karan Singh, “Navigating through the Implications of AI on Legal System", 5, AIJACLA, 320, 320–331 (2025), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/navigating-through-the-implications-of-ai-on-legal-system>

Author Details: Mr. Karan Singh, Research Scholar, Department of Law, Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra

Download PDF

Abstract

The speed with which Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being introduced in the legal systems of various jurisdictions has fundamentally changed the law-making process, adjudication, and enforcement of the law. Predictive police and algorithm-based risk assessment of bail and sentencing, automated analysis of contract terms and virtual courtrooms are only some of the ways AI might bring efficiency and consistency and increase access to justice. Its implementation, however, also attracts questions of serious critical issues concerning transparency, accountability, due process, privacy, and human rights. The paper critically explores the implication of AI to the legal system by discussing the effects of AI in criminal justice administration, adjudication, and access to justice in the context of democracy. The question that is examined in it is whether algorithmic decision-making does not contradict the fundamental constitutional protections of fairness, equality before law, and the right to a fair trial. The paper also analyses the current regulatory and governance policies in AI technologies, revealing ethical issues, data privacy concerns, and the threat of systemic bias that is inherent in automated technology. In a doctrinal, comparative manner, the paper evaluates the new global and Indian jurisprudential reactions to AI-driven law-making and the necessity of introducing a rights-based, transparent, and accountable AI legal framework. The argument in the paper is that although AI can enhance the effectiveness of legal institutions its uncontrolled application can compromise the core values of justice unless restricted by well-developed legal, ethical, and constitutional protections.

Keywords:- Artificial Intelligence; Legal System; Judicial Decision-Making; Human Rights; AI Governance.

Paper Code: AIJACLAV29RP2025

1. Introduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Changing Landscape of Law                                                                  

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is among the main technology influences that deeply alter the way governance and institutional decision-making, including the legal system, operate today. AI-assisted tools are now being used by legal institutions in different countries for functions like predicting crime, assessing risks in bail and sentencing, conducting legal research, analyzing contracts, doing digital forensics, and organizing virtual court trials, among others. All these changes point to a major transition from the classic human-centered legal systems to the modern ones where technology and sometimes algorithms take part in decision-making. On one hand, AI has the full potential to bring about great advantages in terms of efficiency, speed, and consistency, however, on the other hand, the concern of fairness, accountability, transparency, and most importantly, the respect of fundamental legal values, are already raised by the integration of AI into the legal sphere.^[1]

In democratic societies, the legal system has a special role, being the protector of constitutional morality, fairness in procedure, and the rule of law. Decisions in the legal field, in contrast to those in strictly administrative or business domains, directly affect people's liberty, respect, and fundamental liberties. Due process, presumption of innocence, reasoned adjudication, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial are some of the most fundamental legal concepts that should be carefully considered in light of the increasing use of AI in the legal processes.^[2] Algorithmic bias, lack of transparency in decision-making models, data privacy issues and the reduction of human judicial discretion have raised the intensity of both scholarly and policy debates about AI-powered legal systems.^[3]

The research will cover both the positive and negative aspects of AI-assisted legal technologies and will be based on a doctrinal and analytical approach complemented by comparative viewpoints. The research method used is mainly doctrinal, and it involves the use of legal texts, judicial decisions, policy documents, and academic literature to evaluate the impact of AI on law in terms of both norms and institutions.

The structure of this paper consists of eight sections. The first section is the introduction and the following second section shows the conceptual and historical evolution of AI in the legal systems. The third and fourth sections discuss the influence of AI in the administration of criminal justice and judicial decision-making respectively. The fifth section analyzes the constitutional, human rights, and ethical aspects, and the sixth section provides an analysis of data protection and governance frameworks.

2. Evolution and Conceptual Foundations of AI in Legal Systems

The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has its roots in the early computational theories that tried to mimic human logical thinking with machines. Initially, the legal industry utilized these early systems for fundamental research, document retrieval, and simple rule application, especially in the fields of tax law and contract analysis. While their area of application was narrow, the technologies that came into being then were the first manifestations of an enduring relationship between legal reasoning and automation.

The present-day artificial intelligence development period is known for its reliance on machine learning, deep learning, and data-driven algorithms that can recognize patterns, forecast results, and change according to new inputs.^[4] The legal technologies have therefore gone beyond the mere clerical help and started to be even more sophisticated by affecting the very core of decision-making processes, such as the cases of using algorithms for predicting crimes, assessing risks in the judicial system, and resolving disputes automatically. This change is a part of a larger trend in the administration of justice, where the algorithms are becoming more and more important in making the decision and human input less and less so^[5]

At the conceptual level algorithmic decision-making would mean those processes, where thru the automated systems, statistical models and data analytics are used to produce recommendations or outcomes that either inform or even decide legal matters. Such systems are often seen as unbiased and fast, but their functioning is conditioned by data choices, design principles, and the priorities of institutions.^[6] Therefore, the algorithmic choices made by the systems can incorporate biases that are not obvious, be non-transparent and not subject to meaningful review. These factors could jeopardize the application of some established legal principles like reasoned decision-making and accountability. The confluence of law, tech, and jurisprudence brings up essential inquiries regarding the very essence of legal reasoning. According to critics, the substitution of interpretative judgment with statistical inference is likely to turn law into a function of expert technique that is separated from its moral and ethical grounds.^[7]

AI has evolved into a mainstream legal tool though these reservations still exist and the reason is mainly the problem of the system such as the unremitting judicial delays, poor administration, and inequitable distribution of justice. The tools that are powered by AI hold the promise of raising the undeclared institutional capacity, making procedures uniform, and providing better legal services.^[8]

3. AI in Criminal Justice Administration

AI applications are increasingly influencing the way law enforcement operates, courts' decisions about bail and sentencing, forensic investigations, and monitoring of parole and probation. These technologies are frequently regarded as the primary reasons for their use due to their efficiency and unbiased nature, however, they still create significant issues in regards to the Constitution, laws, and legal theories.

3.1 Predictive Policing and Surveillance Mechanisms

In predictive policing, algorithmic algorithms use historical crime data to either exclude people from a group based on their presumption that they are more likely to commit a crime or to forecast where crimes will occur. The use of crime analytics technologies like the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) and face recognition technology show that the Indian police are putting more and more faith in data-based law enforcement. Nevertheless, such deeds are subject to legal constraints that require, among other things, non-arbitrary conduct, fair reaction, and equal treatment in accordance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Judgmental reviews of surveillance tactics have centered on the need to find a middle ground between individual privacy rights and the state's security objectives.In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, the Supreme Court confirmed the right to privacy as a basic human right and drew attention to the fact that any form of spying must comply with the criteria of being legal, necessary, and proportionate^[9] The application of surveillance by means of AI that is not backed by transparent legal measures does not only expose the potential of normalising mass surveillance but also of discriminating law enforcement practices mainly targeted at minority groups which in turn will result in reducing the scope of constitutional rights of equal treatment in the courts.

3.2 AI in Bail, Sentencing, Parole, and Risk Assessment

By predicting the likelihood of reoffending or fleeing, AI-assisted risk assessment tools are becoming more important in deciding on bail, punishment, and parole in many parts of the world. While Indian courts have not embraced algorithmic risk scoring officially, such actuarial reasoning still affects the exercise of discretion as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, especially Sections 437 and 439..

In State v Loomis, the Wisconsin Supreme Court Although the Court acknowledged the use of a confidential risk assessment tool in the sentencing process, it expressed concern about the instrument's potential for bias and lack of transparency in its methodology, which might lead to its indiscriminate use.^[10] This question raises matters not foreign to the Indian constitutional jurisprudence, where the doctrine of reasoned judicial orders is considered to be essential for procedures of fairness.^[11] The absence of interpretability for AI-generated risk scores is challenging to the principles of natural justice and judicial responsibility.

3.3 Digital Forensics and Automated Evidence Analysis

AI has merely shifted the paradigm of digital forensics and evidence analysis due to its capability to processed vast amounts of electronic information super-fast, such as call logs, financial transactions, biometric data, and surveillance videos, etc. The Indian law on admissibility of electronic evidence is governed by Section 65B of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The courts have always explained that the very foundations of electronic evidence are authenticity and reliability, as seen in Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer.^[12]

3.4 Bias, Fairness, and Accountability Concerns

Algorithmic bias is a major concern regarding AI-powered criminal justice systems. De facto, AI systems that have been fed with the historically biased datasets may continue to reflect and even enhance the social disparities that already exist, thus producing unfair results.^[13] From a constitutional standpoint, such discrimination infringes the promise of equal protection of laws enshrined in Article 14. Moreover, the distribution of the decision-making process between human and automated systems makes it difficult to identify the legal person responsible for the wrongful or unjust outcomes. The Indian Supreme Court has constantly pointed out that it is judicially and transparently that discretion affecting personal freedom should be practised.^[14].

4. AI-Assisted Judicial Decision-Making and Court Processes

The introduction of Artificial Intelligence in legal proceedings has revolutionized the functioning of the judiciary to a greater extent in the areas of legal research, case management, and virtual trials. Despite the continuous introduction of AI-induced tools designed to boost the pace of processes in the courts and reduce the number of cases awaiting trial, their use raises serious concerns regarding the power of judges, their neutrality, and the fairness of the process.

4.1 AI Tools in Legal Research, Case Management, and Virtual Courts

AI platforms continue to be recognized as crucial and indispensable instruments in various courts and applications of the legal profession, such as, legal research, analyzing, reviewing documents, and managing dockets. The Indian judiciary's slow but steady embrace of technology is evident in the e-Courts Project, virtual courtrooms, and automatic case-listing systems initiatives. Electronic processes have been recognized in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which support these advancements by facilitating the movement of electronic records and digital evidence, so they get their place in court.

Virtual hearings were essential for the continuation of justice delivery during the COVID-19 epidemic, and the Supreme Court of India had already acknowledged the use of technology in improving judicial efficiency.^[15] The use of systems in case management powered by AI has given significant support in the areas like rapid scheduling, accurate record-keeping and easy access to legal information. Nevertheless, the growing dependence on algorithms in running the courts has made one worry whether this will lead to the costing of contextual adjudication through the standardisation of judicial processes.

4.2 Impact on Judicial Discretion and Independence

Judicial discretion constitutes a fundamental element of adjudication, allowing judges to interpret the law according to the facts, justice, and social values. Such tools, even though they are mainly seen as advisory, could attract the pressure of the institutions to go along with the algorithmic recommendations because of their perceived objectivity and efficiency.

The independence of the judiciary has long been emphasized in Indian constitutional law as an essential feature of the Constitution's basic framework.^[16] The risk of judicial independence relying on technological interventions that restrict or heavily sway judges' discretion is very real. Different legal systems in different countries remind us of these concerns again and again. In State v LoomisThe Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a warning that using computational tools for sentencing should not be seen as a substitute for a judge's decision or the final arbiter of a case's fate.^[17]

4.3 Transparency, Explainability, and Due Process Concerns

Numerous AI tools are intentionally created to act as "black boxes," meaning they provide results but do not disclose the reasoning or the data behind them. The Supreme Court has always been of the view that reasoned orders are a vital component of the fairness of the process.^[18] In judicial cases where the use of AI tools affects the results and no justifications are provided, the participants may be practically deprived of any substantial opportunity to dispute or even understand the decisions. Such a scenario not only undermines the due process but also lowers the reliability of the judicial process as a complete entity.

4.4 Limits of Automation in Adjudication

AI can be advantageous in the sectors of administration and analysis, but the facet of adjudication will forever be a small part of AI. Adjudication encompasses moral reasoning, contextual interpretation, and empathy—the very characteristics that no machine can ever possess. The Supreme Court has emphasized that justice has to be not only done but also seen to be done.^[19]

Therefore, AI should be utilized in the legal process as a partner that assists but does not take over the logic. The human-in-the-loop approach, which is actually rooted in the constitutional principles and judicial accountability, is necessary to ensure that the technological advancement strengthens rather than undermines the very pillars of justice.

5. Constitutional Safeguards, Human Rights, and Ethical Challenges

The very extents of Artificial Intelligence's usage in the forensic and judicial fields are raised along with the constitutional and human rights issues. If any technological disruptions are made in the Indian legal structure, such disruptions shall be examined through the prism of basic rights particularly the 14th and the 21st Articles of the Constitution. The unregulated AI systems pose a threat to the very essence of the procedural safeguards—they would cause the resurgence of the inequality factor and erode the moral accountability in adjudication.

5.1 Right to Fair Trial and Procedural Fairness

The Constitutional guarantee of a fair trial is one of the main features of Article 21 and includes the principles of natural justice, transparency, and reasoned decision-making.^[20] The deployment of AI-assisted tools on investigation, bail, or sentencing decisions brings forth issues of concern particularly where the operation of such systems is not clear or not available to the accused person at all.

Even if an accused person has been informed about the reasons for the negative decisions, he/she still must be given an effective opportunity to contest them, this is the requirement of procedural fairness. The right to a fair hearing is compromised where the output of the algorithm influences the judicial or quasi-judicial decision without sufficient disclosure of the methodology and data sources.^[21]

5.2 Equality, Non-Discrimination, and Algorithmic Bias

Article 14 assures that every citizen is treated equally by law and gets the same protection from law. Hence, one of the important constitutional issues is the bias that comes with using algorithms, as it can lead to people in the same situation being treated differently without any reasonable connection to legitimate objectives.

The equality of opportunity may appear in disputes of such kind, but my respect for it may sometimes look like an inclusion with well-considered exceptions.^[22] Some socioeconomic groups or those who are already disadvantaged may be disproportionately affected by AI decisions, and this might violate the constitutional mandate of non-discrimination. The issue of discrimination becomes more complicated legally when bias in sophisticated algorithms is hidden, for the impacted people might not be able to prove that they have been discriminated against according to the usual standard of evidence.

5.3 Presumption of Innocence and Automated Systems

Article 21's guarantee of a fair trial includes the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal law.Tools that are based on AI technology and are mainly employed for risk assessment or preventive policing are functioning through probabilistic logic that evaluates the future conduct rather than the past guilt. These kinds of anticipatory evaluations might be a danger to transition the whole criminal justice system from proof to prediction-based governance instead of adjudication. Indian courts have warned against the practices that undermine the presumption of innocence or allow the use of preemptive punishment.^[23] It is possible that automated systems which classify people as "high-risk" could affect the judge's choice in bail or sentencing, thus indirectly punishing people who are not convicted. This is a serious issue that leads to questioning the compatibility of such practices with constitutional criminal law

5.4 Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Accountability

The legal system has turned the use of AI into a challenge that goes beyond the need for legal guarantees as it raised serious ethical dilemmas regarding the responsibility and moral accountability of the actors. The whole process of legal adjudication is not simply a matter of technology but rather a normative process that entails human judgment, empathy, and moral reasoning. The sharing of decision-making between human beings and machines makes it even harder to determine who is responsible for wrong or unjust outcomes.

The Court of Highest Jurisdiction has made it clear that the process of judicial decision-making would be futile if it did not reflect constitutional morality and accountability.^[24] Handing over adjudicating powerful factors to the non-transparent AI systems endangers the very moral basis of the system. Thus, ethical governance of AI needs to be based on a human-centric model which will provide the system with transparency, supervision, and accountability, and will strengthen human judgment in the legal sphere instead of replacing it.

6. Data Protection, Privacy, and AI Governance Frameworks

Artificial Intelligence functioning in legal systems is basically data-centered, depending on the huge-scale gathering, handling, and investigation of personal and sensitive data.

6.1 Data-Driven Legal Systems and Privacy Risks

The legal systems that use AI technology are reliant on a vast amount of data which are collected from policing records, court databases, biometric data and electronic communication. The collection and constant processing of such information increase the likelihood of profiling, function creep and unauthorized secondary use.The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India recognised informational privacy as a part of Article 21, and stressed that personal data should not be subject to arbitrary state action..^[25]

When predictive analytics and surveillance tools are used without well-defined legal boundaries in the context of criminal justice, there is a possibility that targeted investigation may evolve into systematic monitoring. This kind of approach will lead to the privacy norm being undermined and the exception of surveillance being allowed only under very tight constitutional scrutiny.

6.2 Surveillance, Consent, and Informational Autonomy

Surveillance tools powered by AI—like facial recognition, automated following, and behavior analysis—are direct threats to individual consent and freedom. When data is secretly collected or made a condition for getting public services or justice, the idea of consent turns into a mere illusion.^[26]

In Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, the Court highlighted that state actions which have an impact on fundamental rights in the digital space must meet the criteria of legality, necessity and proportionality.^[27] Incorporating this framework into surveillance powered by AI, any legal technology that relies heavily on data must show an unambiguous legal foundation as well as procedural protections against misuse.

6.3 Existing Regulatory and Governance Approaches

India has turned to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 as its main legal action regarding data governance which creates duties regarding legal processing, purpose limitation, data minimization, and accountability of data fiduciaries.^[28]. Judicial control is still a very important way of protecting people when there is no legal regulation. The Information Technology Act, 2000 in connection with constitutional law still controls the processing of electronic data, but it does not have any special accountability mechanisms for AI. On the other hand, some jurisdictions are establishing and stating AI-specific regulatory frameworks with the emphasis on transparency and human oversight.^[29]

6.4 Need for Rights-Centric AI Regulation

The supervision of AI in judicial matters should not be based solely on efficiency but rather on a rights-based regulatory model. Therefore, the framework should require explanation, proper use of data, and human control, especially in cases where AI affects the decision about life and liberty..^[30] In the absence of firm governance mechanisms, legal systems based on AI run the risk of making surveillance a norm and of eroding people's right to control their information thus reducing the general public's trust in the justice delivery system.

7. Impact of AI on Legal Profession and Access to Justice

The use of Artificial Intelligence in legal systems has a great impact on the legal profession and the ways through which justice access is provided. New technologies based on AI are changing the traditional legal roles, changing the service delivery methods, and at the same time raising new issues of fairness and inclusiveness.

7.1 Automation of Legal Services and Changing Professional Roles

Automated machine learning tools that are AI-powered are being applied more and more in legal research, document examination, contract analysis, and case prediction. The use of these technologies is making the legal profession's traditional structure to the top quickly since they are taking over the monotone and repetitive tasks that usually junior lawyers and legal clerks do. On the one hand, the automation of these tasks leads to better and quicker work collaborations but on the other hand, it is also seen as a problem for the legal profession in terms of skills and knowledge base being reduced as well as fewer situations for the gaining of experiential learning through""even"more"skill-intensive situations".

The Indian Supreme Court has pointed out that lawyers are indispensable to the justice system and that they must change their ways in order to keep up with societal and technological changes.^[31] Yet, the ethical duties of lawyers according to the Advocates Act, 1961 still exist unchanged, which means legal practitioners have to be competent, diligent, and responsible no matter if technology is involved or not. Thus, AI tools must serve as lawyers' practice helpers and not be treated as professional judgment replacements.

7.2 AI as an Enabler of Access to Justice

AI is a powerful tool that can make justice more accessible by speeding up the legal process, making it less expensive, and providing more legal information. Virtual courts, online dispute resolution platforms, and AI-hybrid legal aid services have provided the access to legal remedies to the populations that are especially isolated or poor due to their distance from the courts or lack of money. The court systems during the pandemic were able to stay open virtually, thus highlighting the importance of technology for the continuous access to justice.^[32]

One of the constitutional elements, the right to seek justice was recognised as a part of the inherent right to life.^[33] If permissively built, support from AI-powered technologies can ensure this right by connecting the inefficiencies of the institutions and making the legal information more accessible.

7.3 Digital Divide and Exclusion Risks

It is possible that the legal infrastructure driven by AI, even though it has a high potential, would make the inequalities already present in the world more severe. The digital gap—defined as the disparity in the access to technology, digital skills, and the internet—can leave the less privileged people out of the justice system that is controlled by AI..^[34] Without proper measures in place, the courts and legal services powered by AI might give preference to users who are technologically skilled while pushing the other users to the periphery, thus violating the fundamental principle of equal access to justice.

7.4 Future Skill Requirements for Legal Professionals

New legal trends are likely to need new skills for lawyers with technological literacy, data ethics, and interdisciplinary knowledge at the top of the list. Nevertheless, reasoning, advocacy, and ethical judgment are still considered as the basic legal skills that cannot be neglected. The problem here is to merge the technological expertise with the basic legal principles that will guarantee the AI's support of the legal profession's role rather than its diminish.

8. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

8.1 Conclusion

The paper has shown that AI-driven tools have reached every corner of the legal ecosystem-- from the administration of criminal justice to judicial decision-making, data governance, and the provision of legal services. Yet, despite these technologies bringing about the above-mentioned benefits of efficiency, consistency, and increased institutional capacity, their lack of regulation or their excessive use would still lead to a great deal of harm to the constitutional protection, human rights, and the legal system's moral ground.

Indian constitutional jurisprudence lays down that legality, fairness, accountability, and proportionality are the indispensable principles that must govern any state action touching life and liberty. Hence, the use of AI in legal proceedings, especially those regarding criminal liability, surveillance, or adjudication must always be inferior to the constitutional values provided for Articles 14 and 21. In the end, the problem isn't so much about fighting against technology but rather about making sure that AI is a tool that assists humans and not a machine that decides all by itself.

8.2 Policy Recommendations

First, especially in the areas of criminal justice and judicial processes, the requirement for AI standards across the board in terms of transparency, explainability, and accountability is urgent. Legal aspects of the ruling determined by the algorithmic systems should be made accessible through disclosure rules and supervision methods as a matter of compulsion

Second,There should be a legal requirement for judicial oversight and human supervision in all cases involving the use of AI tools for decision support. The results produced by automated systems have to be advisory only and cannot replace reasoned judicial orders.

Third, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 should reinforce data protection measures by limiting state exceptions and making sure that personal data is used proportionately in AI-based legal systems.

Fourth, it is necessary to conduct training programs that will help to develop the technological skills of judges, lawyers, and law enforcement personnel and at the same time, strengthen their knowledge of ethics and the constitution.

Finally, The governance of artificial intelligence in law should apply a framework of constitutional morality, thus, guaranteeing that the innovation leads to the improvement of justice access without the erosion of equality, dignity, or due process.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Books

·         Eubanks V, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (St Martin’s Press 2018)

·         Goodfellow I, Bengio Y and Courville A, Deep Learning (MIT Press 2016)

·         Harcourt BE, Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age (University of Chicago Press 2007)

·         Hart HLA, The Concept of Law (3rd edn, OUP 2012)

·         Pasquale F, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press 2015)

·         Russell S and Norvig P, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd edn, Pearson 2010)

·         Susskind R, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (2nd edn, OUP 2017)

·         Susskind R, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (OUP 2019)

Journal Articles and Reports

·         Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S and Kirchner L, ‘Machine Bias’ (ProPublica, 23 May 2016)

·         Gillespie T, ‘The Relevance of Algorithms’ in Gillespie T, Boczkowski P and Foot K (eds), Media Technologies (MIT Press 2014)

·         Roth A, ‘Machine Testimony’ (2017) 126 Yale Law Journal 1972

·       Starr SB, ‘Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination’ (2014) 66 Stanford Law Review 803

·   Yeung K, ‘Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation’ (2018) 12 Regulation & Governance 505

^[1] Richard Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (2nd edn, OUP 2017).

^[2] Mireille Hildebrandt, ‘Law as Information in the Era of Data-Driven Agency’ (2016) 79 Modern Law Review 1.

^[3] Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press 2015).

^[4] Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio and Aaron Courville, Deep Learning (MIT Press 2016).

^[5] Karen Yeung, ‘Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation’ (2018) 12 Regulation & Governance 505.

^[6] Tarleton Gillespie, ‘The Relevance of Algorithms’ in Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo Boczkowski and Kirsten Foot (eds), Media Technologies (MIT Press 2014).

^[7] Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press 2015).

^[8] Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (OUP 2019)

^[9] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

^[10] State v Loomis 881 NW 2d 749 (Wis 2016).

^[11] Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496.

^[12] Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473.

^[13] Sonja B Starr, ‘Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination’ (2014) 66 Stanford Law Review 803.

^[14] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

^[15] In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic (2020) 11 SCC 309.

^[16] Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 1.

^[17] State v Loomis 881 NW 2d 749 (Wis 2016).

^[18] Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496.

^[19] R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.

^[20] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

^[21] Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496.

^[22] E P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3.

^[23] Narendra Singh v State of MP (2004) 10 SCC 699.

^[24] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.

^[25] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

^[26] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-II) v Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1.

^[27] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637.

^[28] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023.

^[29] Karen Yeung, ‘Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation’ (2018) 12 Regulation & Governance 505.

^[30] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.

^[31] Bar Council of India v Aparna Basu (2020) 13 SCC 45.

^[32] In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic (2020) 11 SCC 309.

^[33] Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81.

^[34] Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (2018) 10 SCC 639.