India should use AI to declutter its complex, messy legal system | Hindustan Times

India aspires to become a developed economy by 2047. But it cannot achieve that ambition when enforcing a contract takes years, resolving a property dispute can consume a generation, and understanding the law requires expensive professional help. India’s legal system remains a major economic bottleneck. The World Bank’s last Doing Business assessment estimated that enforcing a contract took 1,445 days — almost four years. Things have improved since, but how much depends on the person telling the anecdote. The National Judicial Data Grid now records more than five crore pending cases in district courts alone.

AI could help ordinary Indians in discovering what the law requires, establishing facts, and understanding their rights before disputes arise. (HT Archive)The economic and human costs are enormous. Businesses hesitate to enter agreements they cannot reliably enforce. Entrepreneurs spend time navigating permissions rather than expanding operations. For ordinary citizens, legal costs can exceed the value of the dispute itself.

Contract enforcement extends beyond courtroom capacity. Tax appeals, land and inheritance disputes, traffic cases, and routine litigation compete for scarce judicial attention. Weak documentation, frivolous litigation, and repeated government appeals compound the burden. Allegations of corruption and inconsistent decisions in some lower courts further undermine confidence.

Yes, India needs more judges, better court administration, and procedural reform. But it must ask a more fundamental question: Why must citizens encounter the law mostly after something has gone wrong?

In an earlier piece, one of us argued that much of the discussion on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in emerging markets echoes the advanced-economy narrative — even though AI offers emerging economies an opportunity to democratise expertise at marginal cost, dramatically improving productivity for ordinary people in agriculture, dairy farming, construction, and care. In advanced economies, automation poses a greater threat, potentially affecting 30% of jobs. In emerging economies, AI may substitute only about 5% of jobs while it could enhance productivity across much of the rest.

Sadly, the conversation on the legal sector in emerging markets replicates the advanced economy rhetoric. It focuses largely on making judges more efficient, automating processes and reducing dependence on the lower judiciary. We need a different lens. Rather than simply helping judges and lawyers process cases faster, AI should make legal capability widely accessible, prevent avoidable disputes and improve decisions before they generate litigation.

Three reforms could make this possible.

Make legal capability a public service: India should launch a National Legal Capability Mission, aiming to give every citizen and small business free initial legal guidance, in their own language, through a phone or assisted service centre by 2030. The foundations are emerging. The government’s Nyaya Setu, launched in 2026, uses multilingual AI to explain legal rights, processes, and next steps. The next leap is to help people navigate their actual circumstances and documents. Consider a small manufacturer expanding a factory. Understanding environmental, labour, zoning and industrial approvals may require multiple consultants and government visits. An AI legal aide could examine existing licences and proposed changes, identify required approvals, flag conflicting provisions, and highlight questions needing professional review.

A family purchasing property could upload old title deeds, inheritance documents, and land records in different Indian languages. AI could reconstruct ownership history, identify missing links, and flag unresolved claims before the family commits its savings.

A farmer disputing land-acquisition compensation could compare the award with ownership records and applicable rules, identify discrepancies, and prepare an evidence-backed brief for a lawyer.

This would not replace lawyers. It would make their expertise more accessible and productive while helping citizens recognise risks they might otherwise overlook.

Such a service must also reach people with limited digital literacy. Voice interfaces, regional languages, and assisted access through existing service centres are essential. Accuracy must be independently evaluated across states, languages, and legal categories. The ambition should be an AI legal aide for every Indian — not merely answering questions, but helping people understand their options and act on them.

Build a sovereign, trusted source of Indian law: AI legal guidance is only as reliable as its underlying information. India’s laws are scattered across central and state legislation, departmental notifications, regulatory circulars, and judicial decisions. Frequent amendments and inconsistent publication make them difficult even for professionals to track.

Taking a leaf from the Reserve Bank of India’s master circulars, which consolidate regulatory instructions, all ministries and regulatory agencies should similarly consolidate and regularly update their rules and notifications in a machine-readable, AI-ready format such as Akoma Ntoso, a UN-developed legal standard.

Over time, Supreme Court and high court judgments should be organised by subject, with conflicting interpretations of similar issues highlighted. Citizens and corporations could then better assess legal uncertainty before initiating proceedings.

Cut transaction costs: AI’s greatest value may lie not in resolving disputes faster, but in preventing them. Imagine the savings in terms of time and costs with title deed examination. If AI could map successive ownership transfers, identify missing conveyance documents, and flag land-use restrictions for a bank processing a home loan even before a lawyer completes a title opinion, it would cut time dramatically.

Similar capabilities could transform other transactions. A small enterprise could spot onerous contract clauses before signing. A government officer could verify whether a proposed rejection is supported by applicable rules. In taxation, AI could identify inconsistent assessments, organise appeal records, and distinguish genuine disputes from routine administrative errors. In traffic enforcement, digital verification and accessible grievance processes could resolve straightforward disputes without court appearances.

AI alone will not eliminate judicial delays, corruption or frivolous litigation. These require institutional accountability, judicial capacity, and reform of government litigation. But AI could help ordinary Indians in discovering what the law requires, establishing facts, and understanding their rights before disputes arise. India has demonstrated its ability to build digital public infrastructure at population scale. Legal capability could be the next frontier. For decades, access to justice has meant making courts more accessible. India can now pursue something more ambitious. Reduce the need for the court by making the law itself more accessible to every citizen.

Janmejaya Sinha is chairman, BCG India, and Kevin Sanghvi is partner, BCG. The views expressed are personal