CJI tells law universities: Lead technology's role in reshaping legal system
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Sunday (August 16, 2026) called on national law universities to move beyond merely adapting to technological change and instead take the lead in shaping how technology reshapes the legal system, with justice, fairness and human judgment at its core.
Speaking at the Vice Chancellors' Conclave 2.0 at National Law University, Jodhpur, the CJI said the legal profession can no longer afford to be a late adopter of technology. He rejected an outright ban on tools like generative AI in legal education, arguing that such a step would be counterproductive.
“Academic integrity and the responsible use of artificial intelligence must become important components of curriculum and pedagogy. Change of this nature does not wait for institutional comfort,” the CJI said.
The conclave, themed “Legal Technology and its Roadmap: Positioning Law as a Leader in Legal Technology”, brought together vice chancellors of National Law Universities (NLUs) to deliberate on integrating technology into legal education and practice.
The CJI noted that technology is already transforming the legal ecosystem—from drafting contracts and conducting due diligence to legal research, evidence management and dispute resolution. In this context, he said, law schools must be the first line of response to this transformation.
Graduates, he observed, will increasingly work with tools capable of reading thousands of precedents within seconds, identifying legal and regulatory risks, and supporting courts and dispute-resolution mechanisms. But familiarity with technology alone will not be enough, he cautioned.
“A graduate who understands only the output of a technological tool would remain dependent on it, while one trained to question assumptions, verify conclusions and exercise independent judgment could use technology without surrendering responsibility,” he said.
The CJI also addressed the ongoing debate over the use of generative AI in legal education. While acknowledging legitimate concerns—such as students becoming overly dependent on AI, losing the ability to construct arguments independently, or mistaking convincing-looking answers for accurate ones—he rejected an outright prohibition on such tools.
Instead, he advocated for their transparent and supervised use in classrooms, allowing students to learn both their capabilities and limitations.
The CJI warned that institutions which resist inevitable technological change risk losing the opportunity to shape it. Legal education, he said, should not stop at adaptation because adaptation merely responds to change after it has occurred.
“Instead, law universities should anticipate technological developments, shape their direction and ensure that technology evolves in service of law and its underlying values,” he said.
To achieve this, the CJI stressed collaboration among NLUs and called for serious research on algorithmic accountability, data protection, digital access to justice, and the changing relationship between technology and dispute resolution.
“Let technology make legal institutions and services more capable, but let our values determine the direction in which that capability is used,” he said, adding that innovation should make justice faster but never make it less fair.
