AI in Bangladesh’s Judiciary: Reformative Innovation or Risk to Natural Justice?

Md. Maruf Bin Faruk

 

Introduction

In an era of rapid technological advancement, artificial intelligence (AI) is being integrated into various sectors — from healthcare to banking — with the aim of improving efficiency and outcomes. The legal sector, traditionally cautious about change, is no exception. Around the world, jurisdictions are experimenting with AI in judicial decision-making to speed up processes and enhance consistency. But these developments also raise serious legal and ethical questions. In Bangladesh, a country grappling with a massive judicial backlog and limited judicial resources, the temptation to adopt AI is evident. But the question remains: Is AI a tool for reform, or a threat to the principle of natural justice?

The Promise of AI in Judicial Systems

The appeal of AI in the judiciary lies in its potential to streamline repetitive legal tasks. AI can assist in legal research, case classification, precedent identification, and even predicting outcomes based on historical data. Countries like India have introduced SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency), an AI tool meant to help judges process data efficiently. Estonia has gone even further, piloting an AI-powered “robot judge” to adjudicate small claims under €7,000. These efforts reflect a belief that AI can reduce human error, ensure consistency, and ease the pressure on judges.

In Bangladesh, where over four million cases remain pending as of 2024, and thousands of litigants suffer prolonged delays, the adoption of AI appears attractive. The government’s Digital Bangladesh initiative, which promotes the integration of technology in governance, sets the stage for potential judicial AI integration. If implemented properly, AI could play a significant role in tackling case backlogs, offering faster dispute resolution in small claims or administrative matters.

Threats to Natural Justice and Fair Trial Rights

Despite the promise, there is a looming danger that AI may compromise foundational legal principles — especially natural justice. Two key elements of natural justice — the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) — may be undermined by opaque algorithms that operate without human oversight or clear explanation.

1. Lack of Transparency

AI systems, especially those based on machine learning, often operate as "black boxes." Their reasoning processes are not always transparent or explainable. If a judge relies on an AI tool to decide a case, and the tool recommends an outcome based on complex, unintelligible algorithms, how can a litigant challenge the logic of that decision? This erodes the accountability and transparency essential to judicial integrity.

2. Algorithmic Bias

AI is only as neutral as the data it is trained on. If historical judgments used to train an AI system reflect societal biases — whether related to gender, class, or ethnicity — the AI may reproduce or even amplify these biases. For instance, if past bail decisions were disproportionately harsh on certain communities, an AI tool might learn to recommend harsher bail outcomes for those same groups. Without a mechanism to identify and correct such biases, AI decisions could entrench injustice.

3. Undermining Judicial Discretion

Judges rely on more than precedent; they apply empathy, moral reasoning, and context to reach just conclusions. AI lacks these human faculties. Overreliance on AI may lead to rigid outcomes that ignore nuances critical to justice — such as the circumstances of a juvenile offender or the socio-economic background of a victim.

Bangladesh’s Legal and Regulatory Vacuum

In Bangladesh, the legal framework is currently unequipped to regulate AI in judicial functions. There is no statute, guideline, or judicial pronouncement directly addressing the use of AI in court proceedings. The Information and Communication Technology Act 2006, while important for digital infrastructure, does not cover the use of algorithmic decision-making in legal adjudication.

The Constitution of Bangladesh, particularly Articles 27, 31, and 35, guarantees equality before the law, protection of the law, and fair trial rights. Any AI implementation in courts must be measured against these constitutional guarantees. Without a clear legal framework, the risk is that AI tools may be adopted informally or through administrative channels, bypassing the safeguards necessary to ensure constitutionality and fairness.

Moreover, the judiciary's independence — a basic structure principle under the Constitution — may be compromised if AI tools are deployed or controlled by the executive or private tech firms. Judges should retain full autonomy over their decisions, and AI should be used only to assist, not replace, their discretion.

Ethical and Practical Considerations

Even if legal reform is initiated, several practical and ethical questions remain:

- Who designs the AI tools? Are they private vendors? How are they held accountable?

- Who audits these tools? Is there an independent body to test and verify their accuracy, fairness, and neutrality?

- Will litigants be informed? Do citizens have the right to know when an AI tool has influenced a judicial decision?

Furthermore, digital illiteracy in many parts of Bangladesh raises concerns about accessibility. If litigants do not understand how AI works, how can they meaningfully participate in their own legal process?

The Way Forward: Cautious Innovation

Bangladesh can certainly benefit from technological reform in its judiciary — but it must do so with caution, clarity, and constitutional fidelity. AI should be introduced in non-adjudicative roles first: digitizing court records, streamlining case listings, or automating routine clerical tasks. Any AI-based recommendation or analysis used in decision-making should remain non-binding and subject to judicial oversight.

To move forward responsibly, Bangladesh should consider the following steps:

1. Develop a legislative framework regulating AI in judicial contexts, with built-in constitutional safeguards.

2. Ensure algorithmic transparency, requiring developers to publish the logic and data behind their models.

3. Establish an AI ethics body, possibly under the Law Commission, to oversee AI tools in the legal sector.

4. Train judges and lawyers in digital literacy and AI interpretation, ensuring they can critically assess AI recommendations.

5. Guarantee informed consent and the right to contest decisions influenced by AI.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence offers Bangladesh an unprecedented opportunity to reform its struggling judicial system. However, without a robust legal, ethical, and institutional framework, the very tools meant to enhance justice may instead threaten it. The goal should not be to replace judges with machines but to equip them with better tools, while preserving the human wisdom, empathy, and fairness at the heart of justice.

AI can indeed be a tool for reform — but only if it serves, and does not subvert, the principles of natural justice.