The existing legal framework in India is inadequate

The gap

Evidence profile

Sourced from the stated research gap and stated challenges and future-work section of the source papers, classified as general, spanning 4 journals. Those papers have been cited 3 times in total.

Supporting evidence — 6 representative gaps

• Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Legal Profession in India: Opportunities and Challenges (2026) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi

  The existing legal framework in India is inadequate to address the complex challenges posed by Artificial Intelligence in the legal profession. There is a need for a balanced and regulated approach to ensure that AI serves as a supportive tool rather than a substitute for human judgment in the legal system.

  generalstated research gap
  Keywords: existing legal framework india inadequate address complex challenges
• El marco regulatorio europeo de la inteligencia artificial y su impacto en el sistema judicial español. (2026) · Revista de Estudios Europeos · doi

  The use of AI in the judicial process may have a significant impact on the right to a fair trial and the protection of fundamental rights. The regulatory framework for AI must be carefully designed to ensure that it promotes innovation while protecting fundamental rights. The paper highlights the need for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the use of AI in the judicial process.

  generalstated challenges
  Keywords: use judicial process have significant impact right fair
• Artificial intelligence in criminal justice: Predictive tools, evidentiary challenges and human rights implications (2026) · Nauka bezbednost policija · cited 1× · doi

  The study identifies a gap in the existing research on the use of AI in criminal justice, highlighting the need for a critical examination of its impact on fundamental procedural rights. The paper notes that prior work has raised concerns about the potential for systemic bias and the need for transparency and accountability in AI decision-making.

  generalstated research gapevidence 5/5
  Keywords: study identifies gap existing research use criminal justice
• Artificial intelligence in criminal justice: Predictive tools, evidentiary challenges and human rights implications (2026) · Nauka bezbednost policija · cited 1× · doi

  Future research should continue to examine the impact of AI on fundamental procedural rights in criminal justice. Studies should investigate the development of regulatory frameworks to ensure that AI is used in a way that enhances human adjudication, rather than substituting it. Research should also explore the potential for AI to enhance efficiency and accuracy in criminal justice, while minimizing the risk of systemic bias and ensuring transparency and accountability.

  generalfuture-work sectionevidence 5/5
  Keywords: future research continue examine impact fundamental procedural rights
• Inteligência Artificial e o dever de racionalidade: os riscos da automatização de decisões (2026) · Revista DCS · doi

  The use of AI in judicial decision-making poses significant risks to the principle of rationality. The integration of AI into the judicial process requires a careful balance between technological innovation and human oversight. The lack of transparency and explainability in AI systems is a significant challenge.

  generalstated challengesevidence 5/5
  Keywords: use judicial decision-making poses significant risks principle rationality
• Artificial intelligence in criminal justice: Predictive tools, evidentiary challenges and human rights implications (2026) · Nauka bezbednost policija · cited 1× · doi

  The use of AI in criminal justice raises concerns about transparency, explainability, and systemic bias. The study highlights the challenge of ensuring that AI serves justice rather than undermining it. The paper notes the need for robust procedural safeguards to prevent the erosion of fundamental rights in the pursuit of technological progress.

  generalstated challengesevidence 5/5
  Keywords: use criminal justice raises concerns about transparency explainability

Questions about this gap