Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
EPPiSM Baner

No. 2/2026/78 (2026)

Artykuły

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems: Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Safeguards in Poland and India. A Comparative Governance Analysis

Published: 2026-06-30

Abstract

We examine how constitutional structures shape judicial AI governance through a comparative analysis of Poland and India. We propose Sovereign Digital Constitutionalism—constitutional compatibility, technological sovereignty, democratic accountability, and
rights preservation—and show how the EU AI Act operationalises these principles for high-risk judicial AI. Poland’s governance-first sequencing (LEX-AIS within EU AI Act frameworks) contrasts with India’s implementation-first deployment (SUVAS, SUPACE,
e-Courts Phase III), yielding distinct risk profiles and coordination demands. We develop a three-tier safeguards model  (constitutional, procedural, technical) and a judge-centred workflow in which AI assists but never decides. We argue that success depends less on technical sophistication than on constitutional safeguards, judicial leadership, and adaptive governance. We conclude with evidence-based recommendations for democratic jurisdictions integrating AI whilst preserving judicial independence and public legitimacy.

References

  1. Constitution of India (1950), Government of India. [Google Scholar]
  2. Constitution of the Republic of Poland (1997), Journal of Laws no. 78, item 483. [Google Scholar]
  3. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019), The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism, Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Council of Europe, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2018/2023). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c. [Google Scholar]
  5. De Gregorio, G. (2021), Digital Constitutionalism in Europe: Reframing Rights and Powers in the Algorithmic Society, Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Department of Justice, Government of India (2023), E-Courts Phase III Project: Cabinet approval documentation, Ministry of Law and Justice; https://doj.gov.in/phase-iii/ [accessed: December 2024]. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (eds.), University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006), Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and e-Government, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. European Union (2024), Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), Official Journal of the European Union, L 1689, 12.7.2024, p. 1; [Google Scholar]
  10. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gdańsk University of Technology (2024). LEX-AIS Court Support System: Research partnership announcement; https://pg.edu.pl/en/news/2024-11/technology-revolutionize-work-polish-courts-developed-gdansk-tech. [Google Scholar]
  12. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (trans. W. Rehg), MIT Press [original work published 1992]. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hood, C., & Margetts, H. (2007), The Tools of Government in the Digital Age, Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  14. Malhotra, R. (2021), Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Power: 5 Battlegrounds, Rupa Publications India. [Google Scholar]
  15. Noble, S. U. (2018), Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, NYU Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pasquale, F. (2015), The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information, Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Polish Ministry of Digital Affairs (2024), Draft Act on Artificial Intelligence Systems: Consultation documentation; https://www.gov.pl/web/cyfryzacja. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sen, A. (2009), The Idea of Justice, Harvard University Press. Supreme Court e-Committee, Government of India (2024), Annual Implementation Report 2023–24. Supreme Court of India. https://ecommitteesci.gov.in [accessed: December 2024]. [Google Scholar]
  19. Supreme Court of India (2017), Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 10 SCC 1, Writ Petition (Civil) no. 494 of 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Supreme Court of India (2021), SUPACE and SUVAS: AI Tools for Judicial Efficiency, Press Information Bureau, Government of India; https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1714234 [accessed: December 2024]. [Google Scholar]
  21. UODO (Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych / Personal Data Protection Office, Poland). (2024), Position on Draft Act on Artificial Intelligence Systems; https://uodo.gov.pl. [Google Scholar]
  22. Watson, A. (1993), Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law (2nd ed.), University of Georgia Press. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.