The Madras High Court has been dealing with a classic case of “Superlaw Courts”, which is a computer-assisted system designed to assist legal professionals in locating, organising, and understanding information strictly within the documents placed before it in a particular matter. As per the Court, the system is intended to reduce time and effort in manual searching and cross-referencing of voluminous documents.
At the same time, the Court has clarified that Superlaw Courts functions as an organised and cautious record assistant, strictly bound to the record, and leaves legal judgment to human decision-makers. It emphasised that the system does not replace judicial reasoning or professional judgment.
Further, observing that transparency was necessary in using Artificial Intelligence in judicial proceedings, the Court directed that interactions with the algorithm be accessible through a separate link, to ensure that the extent of assistance taken could be independently verified.
The Court further observed that reliance on Artificial Intelligence would be limited to preparation of the draft order up to the stage of recording facts, pleadings, evidence, and submissions. Thereafter, the verification of accuracy would be undertaken by the parties, and judicial decision-making would remain with the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh recorded that this was the first case where assistance of Artificial Intelligence was to be used by the Court. It was agreed that a draft order containing facts, arguments, pleadings, evidence, and findings of the arbitral tribunal would be prepared and circulated to both sides. However, it cautioned that the reliance on Artificial Intelligence would end at that stage, and thereafter, both sides would verify the accuracy of recording of facts and submissions, including pleadings and evidence.
Therefore, the Bench directed for posting of these cases for final hearing on February 12, 2026, and listed the matter for reply arguments on February 17 & 18, 2026.
Previously, in the matters comprising multiple arbitration petitions arising out of disputes between M/s. Gammon–OJSC Mosmetrostroy JV and M/s. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, when the cases were taken up for hearing, an algorithm named “Superlaw Courts” was demonstrated before the Court, whereafter, it was directed that a note explaining the working method of the algorithm be circulated.
The demonstration of the algorithm was conducted with participation of counsel on both sides and the Court. Prima facie, both parties and the Court were satisfied with its working method, and it was suggested that counsel be provided a link to identify specific issues and seek assistance of the algorithm, and that they report to the Court regarding its effectiveness after undertaking the exercise.
Appearances:
Advocates Sivanandaraj and P.J. Rishikesh, for the Petitioner
Advocate K. Harishankar, for the Respondent
