In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used in criminal justice systems across the world. To achieve objectives set out through Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adoption of technology is inevitable and undeniable. The press release dated 25 February 2025 from India’s
[...] Read more.
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used in criminal justice systems across the world. To achieve objectives set out through Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adoption of technology is inevitable and undeniable. The press release dated 25 February 2025 from India’s Ministry of Law and Justice, quoting Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi to make a “justice system that will be fully future-ready”, confirmed that the Indian law enforcement agencies are integrating AI into policing and law enforcement to enhance crime detection, criminal investigation, etc. It is intended to enhance their capabilities in solving criminal cases and delivering justice speedily and more efficiently. However, the usage of AI tools in such contexts presents a double-edged sword, as evidenced by their application in a number of cases across the world like Christopher Gatlin, Nijeer Parks, the Harm Assessment Risk Tool (HART), and in India during the 2020 Delhi riots cases. As reported by the Washington Post, in Christopher Gatlin’s case it was found that the police arrested him on the basis of the facial recognition programme matching his face with the captured video footage. He spent 17 months in jail before his release by the court, observing that the police failed to conduct fair investigation. A similar incident was reported by NJ.com and CNN Business. In the investigations following the 2020 Delhi riots, Delhi Police effected over 1900 arrests in 758 riot-related cases, relying predominantly on AI-driven facial recognition matches. Subsequent court scrutiny in decided cases raised questions about reliability, leading to widespread acquittals and discharges of the accused in 82% of decided cases as of early 2025. In certain cases, AI-driven solutions have failed, leading to criminal prosecutions of innocent people based on AI-generated evidence. This study examines the reliability, validity, and ethics of AI technology in the criminal justice system in India’s unique socio-legal and political environment. The researchers analyse three interrelated axes. First, a comprehensive review of the international algorithmic policing literature to identify successes and failures. In addition, cases of AI-assisted investigations during the Delhi riots show how facial recognition systems and other AI techniques were used for inquiry. Finally, stakeholders’ perspectives, including a preliminary survey of 27 legal experts showing strong consensus on classifying AI-FRT outputs strictly as corroborative evidence and highlighting BSA insufficiencies for addressing opacity and explainability, help identify practical, procedural, and normative fault lines. Researchers noted that while AI has the potential to revolutionise resource-constrained investigative agencies, its unquestioning and uncritical adoption risks amplify pre-existing biases, undermine presumptions of innocence, and shift the burden of refuting algorithmic inference onto the accused. Independent algorithmic audits, transparent documentation of error rates and confidence thresholds, statutory guidelines on AI tool use and admissibility, and sustained capacity-building throughout the justice delivery chain are needed to integrate it into the Indian criminal justice system. Without such measures, the very tools designed and introduced to enhance accuracy threaten to undermine the fundamental norms of the criminal justice system such as fairness and due process. This fills a gap in doctrinal analysis of AI-specific evidentiary admissibility in non-Western contexts like India. This study aims to propose policy reforms, enhance judicial discourse, and promote a more circumspect trajectory for AI adoption in Indian law enforcement by mapping the potential and risks of algorithmic evidence in a non-Western legal order.
Full article