Don’t just adapt but lead in determining use of technology to reshape legal system: CJI to NLUs

On August 16, 2026, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant called on national law universities to lead the integration of technology within the legal system rather than simply adopting it. Speaking at the Vice Chancellors’ Conclave 2.0 at National Law University Jodhpur, the CJI stressed that legal professionals should not remain passive consumers of technological advancements.

Kant emphasized that an outright ban on tools such as generative AI in legal education is not the solution and instead, the responsible use of AI should become an integral part of curricula and pedagogies.

He stated that technology has already begun reshaping the legal ecosystem, from contract drafting and due diligence to legal research, evidence management, and dispute resolution. Law schools must take the first step in addressing these changes as the legal profession cannot afford to be a late adopter. Kant reassured that while familiarity with technology is essential, graduates must also learn to critically evaluate the output of technological tools, question assumptions, verify conclusions, and exercise independent judgment.

Addressing concerns about generative AI in legal education, Kant acknowledged valid worries that students could become overly reliant on AI, lose the ability to construct arguments independently, or mistakenly accept AI-generated answers as accurate. However, he rejected the idea of completely prohibiting such tools. Instead, he advocated for their transparent and supervised use in classrooms, allowing students to understand both the potential benefits and limitations of these technologies.

Kant argued that institutions resisting technological change risk losing their opportunity to shape it. He stressed that legal education should not merely adapt to changes but anticipate them, set their direction, and ensure that technology evolves in service of law and its core values. The chief justice emphasized the need for collaboration among National Law Universities and called for extensive research into algorithmic accountability, data protection, digital access to justice, and the evolving relationship between technology and dispute resolution.

He concluded by asserting that technology should make legal institutions and services more capable while ensuring that values determine the direction of this capability, making justice faster without compromising fairness.