Why Supreme Court needs additional layers of safety

The Supreme Court faces a critical need for additional safeguards to ensure justice is served responsibly. Trained as a medical doctor and specialist surgeon, the author understands the importance of meticulous training and oversight. In contrast, legal professionals undergo much less rigorous apprenticeship before presiding over cases that can determine a person's fate.

This lack of robust training and support systems raises concerns about the reliability of judicial decisions, especially in high-stakes matters. The current system, which relies heavily on individual judgments without sufficient oversight, fails to guarantee fairness and transparency. Sri Lanka's legal hierarchy, culminating in the Supreme Court, is meant to uphold justice, but appearances can be deceiving.

The introduction of a five- or seven-judge bench aimed to enhance accountability, yet the reality is that a single judge may be inadequately prepared, leading to questionable verdicts. The root of the problem lies in the political influence over judicial appointments, which has been a pervasive issue since independence. Politicians have historically appointed judges based on loyalty, often resulting in biased outcomes that favor the ruling party.

Even when judges seem impartial, the pressure to deliver favorable judgments can compromise the integrity of the legal system. To address these challenges, the author proposes two layers of safety: a citizens' back-up jury and a judicial AI assistant. The first layer involves a panel of well-qualified individuals who select through a point-based system and deliver their own verdict before the judges' final decision.

This approach introduces a second opinion that can help mitigate errors and biases. The second layer involves an AI system trained in Sri Lankan law and constitutional principles, which assists judges by providing relevant precedents and legal analyses. Judges can consult JAIA's output, but are required to reach their own independent conclusions before delivering their verdict.

By combining these layers, the Supreme Court can significantly reduce the chances of wrongful judgments caused by human fallibility, bias, and groupthink. Human fatigue and preconceived notions can be minimized, leading to more equitable outcomes. While the presence of political influence over appointments has been a long-standing issue, implementing these safeguards can help restore public trust in the judiciary.

The author's proposal offers a practical solution to a complex problem, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and innovation in the pursuit of justice.