English Language Questions for CLAT | QB Set 38

Artificial intelligence has entered the judicial process with the quiet confidence of a technology that promises efficiency and consistency. Courts across the world are experimenting with AI-assisted research, document management, transcription, and case categorisation. Yet the question is not whether machines can process legal information faster than humans; they undoubtedly can. The more important question is whether justice itself can be reduced to patterns, probabilities, and predictions.

Law is not merely a collection of rules. It is a human institution built upon context, discretion, empathy, and moral judgment. A judge does not simply apply legal principles; a judge weighs competing interests, interprets human conduct, and appreciates circumstances that often defy mathematical precision. AI may identify precedents in seconds, but it cannot genuinely understand remorse, intent, or the social realities that shape disputes.

This is why the growing enthusiasm for AI in courts should be tempered with caution. Technology can strengthen judicial administration by reducing delays and improving access to information. However, the authority to determine guilt, innocence, rights, and liabilities must remain firmly in human hands. Efficiency is valuable, but justice demands something more. A legal system that pursues speed at the expense of wisdom risks becoming technologically advanced yet fundamentally impoverished. The future of courts, therefore, should be one of partnership rather than replacement.

Questions

1. What is the central argument of the passage?

A. AI can assist judicial functions, but final judicial decisions should remain with humans.
B. AI should completely replace judges to improve efficiency.
C. Judicial systems should avoid using AI altogether.
D. Technology is incapable of contributing to court administration.

Answer: A

2. The author’s tone towards AI in the judicial process can best be described as:

A. Enthusiastic and uncritical
B. Dismissive and hostile
C. Indifferent and detached
D. Appreciative yet cautious

Answer: D

3. Why does the author believe judges cannot be fully replaced by AI?

A. AI systems are too expensive for courts.
B. Judicial decision-making involves human judgment, empathy, and contextual understanding.
C. Judges possess greater technical knowledge than AI systems.
D. AI cannot process legal information effectively.

Answer: B

4. The phrase “tempered with caution” most nearly means:

A. Rejected completely
B. Balanced with careful consideration
C. Promoted aggressively
D. Delayed indefinitely

Answer: B

5. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

A. AI will eventually eliminate all court delays.
B. Human judgment has no role in modern legal systems.
C. The ideal future judicial system combines technological assistance with human decision-making.
D. Courts should focus only on efficiency.

Answer: C

Explanations

1. Answer: A

The passage repeatedly argues that AI can support judicial administration through research, transcription, and case management, but decisions involving justice, rights, and liabilities should remain with human judges. This idea is reinforced in the concluding sentence that advocates “partnership rather than replacement.”

2. Answer: D

The author acknowledges the benefits of AI, such as efficiency and improved access to information. However, the author also warns against allowing technology to replace human judgment. Therefore, the tone is neither blindly supportive nor hostile, but appreciative and cautious.

3. Answer: B

The author explicitly states that judges interpret human conduct, weigh competing interests, and appreciate circumstances that “defy mathematical precision.” These functions require empathy, discretion, and contextual understanding, qualities the author believes AI lacks.

4. Answer: B

“Tempered with caution” means that enthusiasm should be moderated or balanced by careful thought and prudence. The author is not suggesting rejection of AI but advocating careful and responsible use.

5. Answer: C

The final paragraph clearly suggests that the future of courts should involve cooperation between humans and AI. The author sees value in technological assistance but insists that ultimate judicial authority should remain with people. Therefore, the most reasonable inference is that an ideal system combines both.