Supreme Court Plans AI-Based Case Listing and Bench Allocation After Registry Lapse

In Md. Anas Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, an old case unexpectedly became central to a major administrative shift now underway in the Supreme Court. The top court is preparing to use artificial intelligence for case listing and bench allocation, a move that could sharply reduce human involvement in one of its most sensitive internal functions.

The decision is understood to have been taken under the leadership of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. If implemented fully, AI-based software will handle how matters are listed and placed before benches. At present, bench assignment remains part of the Chief Justice’s powers as the master of roster.

This reform has emerged from concerns over the working of the Supreme Court registry. Internal scrutiny reportedly revealed two serious issues. First, some officials had remained in the same roles for very long periods, creating a system of deep-rooted incumbency. Second, old technological systems had allowed administrative weaknesses to continue unchecked.

These weaknesses, according to the report, included irregular and improper case allocation. In response, the registry has already seen a large number of interdepartmental transfers. The move is being viewed as an attempt to break longstanding control structures and improve efficiency. Another round of transfers is expected before the end of March.

The immediate trigger came during the hearing of a petition filed by Irfan Solanki. The matter challenged the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, arguing that it conflicted with Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the proceedings, the State of Uttar Pradesh pointed out that a very similar issue had already been dealt with earlier.

It referred to Md. Anas Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where a three-judge bench led by former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had dismissed the challenge on December 12, 2022. The bench had asked the petitioner to seek remedy before the competent forum. Despite that clear order, a near-identical matter still came up before a fresh bench.

This raised serious concerns within the Court about how such duplication slipped through the system. Chief Justice Surya Kant reportedly reacted strongly to the lapse. Even when Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam sought permission to withdraw the plea, the Chief Justice said the matter would remain pending and would be taken to its logical conclusion.

The development is significant because bench allocation has long remained a subject of public and institutional scrutiny. Any attempt to bring in AI is likely to be seen as an effort to make the process more structured, transparent, and less vulnerable to administrative error.

At the same time, the move may also open a fresh debate on accountability in judicial administration. While technology may reduce human discretion, its design, supervision, and safeguards will remain equally important. The real test will be whether this new system improves trust without creating new concerns of its own.