One of the greatest features of law is that it moves with society. In the era of Artificial Intelligence, it is apt that the benefit must be reaped by all in society, including judicial institutions. The integration of such assistive tools, once thought aspirational, has already begun with the Indian Supreme Court's introduction of SUPACE and SUVAS as structural aids in the judicial decision-making process. This integration is not merely technical, but it must be thoroughly evaluated before reaching any conclusion for its benevolent use in the interest of justice. Even though their inclusion is limited to assisting the judges in the administrative process, their utilization can quickly transition from administrative to substantive. The courts are tasked to decide based on human intelligence, but soon, with the advent of AI in courtrooms, the responsibility may quickly shift from human intelligence to Artificial Intelligence if its integration is unchecked and not validated.

India can always learn from the experiences of other nations. In this regard, comparative evaluation provides imperative lessons for India to assess its integration of Artificial Intelligence and the Adjudicatory Process. The US integration offers us the opportunity to understand the use of COMPAS for docket management, but it also raises questions about bias and subjectivity in AI-driven decision-making. In the European Union, the thorough regulation can offer a path where integration of AI and the Judicial process must be guided by Legislative instruments rather than judicial self-regulation. The Chinese experience offers a caution where even though the pendency can be drastically reduced using AI, it can lead to centralized oversight and loss of judicial autonomy. Each experience by varied nations expounds the issue of innovation vis-à-vis independence . This paper contends that legislating the algorithm is not a matter of administrative convenience but of constitutional necessity. A framework here must entrench human oversight as non-delegable, institutionalise mandatory bias audits, demand transparency and reason-giving proportional to the tool’s role, and secure personal data in line with K.S. Puttaswamy judgment  and its affirmation of privacy as a facet of Article 21. Above all, it must preserve the decisional autonomy of the judge, protected since the Kesavananda Bharati case  as part of the Constitution’s unamendable framework. If properly structured, such legislation can reconcile innovation with the rule of law, ensuring that artificial intelligence remains an instrument of justice rather than its surrogate, and reaffirming fairness, reasoned adjudication, and the dignity of the courtroom as enduring constitutional values.