CJI Surya Kant urges law universities to lead India’s legal technology transformation

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has called on National Law Universities (NLUs) to move beyond simply adapting to technological change and take a leadership role in determining how emerging technologies should reshape India’s legal system. Speaking at the Vice Chancellors’ Conclave 2.0 at the National Law University, Jodhpur, the CJI stressed that innovation in the legal sector must remain firmly anchored in justice, fairness and independent human judgment.

The conclave was organised around the theme, “Legal Technology and its Roadmap: Positioning Law as a Leader in Legal Technology.” Addressing academic leaders, Surya Kant said technology was already transforming almost every aspect of the legal ecosystem. From contract drafting and due diligence to legal research, evidence management and dispute resolution, technological tools are increasingly becoming part of everyday legal work.

According to the CJI, law schools cannot afford to remain late adopters of these developments. Instead, they should become the first line of response to technological transformation by preparing future lawyers to understand, evaluate and responsibly use emerging tools.

Surya Kant specifically rejected the idea of imposing an outright ban on generative artificial intelligence tools in legal education. While acknowledging concerns about students becoming overly dependent on AI, he argued that prohibition would not adequately prepare them for a professional environment in which such technologies are likely to become increasingly important.

He said academic integrity and responsible use of artificial intelligence should become integral parts of legal education, with universities developing transparent and supervised frameworks for classroom use.

The CJI also highlighted the risks associated with relying blindly on AI-generated outputs. Students could potentially lose their ability to construct legal arguments independently or mistake persuasive-looking AI responses for accurate legal conclusions. Therefore, he emphasised that technological familiarity must be accompanied by critical thinking, verification and independent judgment.

He pointed out that future law graduates are likely to work with sophisticated tools capable of analysing thousands of legal precedents within seconds, identifying regulatory and legal risks, and assisting courts and dispute-resolution systems. However, simply understanding the output generated by these systems would not be enough.

A lawyer who merely accepts technological outputs, he suggested, could become dependent on the technology. In contrast, a lawyer trained to question assumptions, verify conclusions and exercise independent judgment would be able to use technology without surrendering professional responsibility.

Surya Kant further warned that institutions resisting technological change could lose the opportunity to influence its direction. Rather than waiting for technology to transform the legal system and then responding to it, he urged law universities to anticipate future developments and help shape how those technologies are deployed.

He called for greater collaboration among National Law Universities and encouraged research into areas including algorithmic accountability, data protection, digital access to justice and the evolving relationship between technology and dispute resolution.

The CJI’s broader message was that technological advancement should serve the fundamental objectives of the legal system rather than dictate them. Digital tools, he said, should make legal institutions and services more capable and efficient, but the values of justice and fairness must determine how that capability is used.

His remarks come at a time when artificial intelligence is rapidly expanding across professional and academic environments. For legal education, the challenge is therefore not simply whether students should use AI, but how they can be taught to use it responsibly while preserving the analytical, ethical and argumentative skills essential to the legal profession.

Surya Kant’s call effectively places law universities at the centre of this transition, urging them not merely to follow technological developments but to help ensure that innovation strengthens the justice system without compromising its core values.