Singapore – October 30, 2026 -- Singapore Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon told judges that the closer artificial intelligence comes to exercising judgment, the greater the need for restraint, and that human judgment must stay central to the administration of justice.

Menon delivered the speech, titled "AI and the Judicial Function: The Limits of Artificial Judgment," on 9 October at the 28th Annual Australian Judicial Officers Association Colloquium 2026 in Brisbane. He said AI has already entered the justice system through the parties, the profession and the tools used to administer courts.

Menon ties AI use to three adjudication requirements

Menon grounded his analysis in judicial integrity, procedural fairness and institutional effectiveness. Much of the case for AI rests on effectiveness: scale, speed and baseline reliability could let courts serve more users, more quickly, with generally correct outcomes. Effectiveness alone, he said, cannot justify every use.

Case for AI weakens as tools move from information to reasoning

Menon proposed splitting adjudication into its component parts to identify the values and trade-offs engaged by each. The case for AI is most compelling for acquiring information. It is more qualified where AI analyses that material or proposes outcomes, and most limited where it formulates judicial reasons.

Three human-machine risks drive governance demands

Menon said a sound use of AI can become unsafe through tool design, workflow structure or user habits. He named three risks of human-machine collaboration: over-reliance, skills fade and hidden institutional delegation. His answer was not to retreat from AI but to govern it so that meaningful human judgment and control are preserved. He offered five observations on how to do so in practice.

Menon concluded that AI cannot bear judicial responsibility or replicate the human encounter at the heart of a fair hearing. In adjudication, he said, being human is "not a deficiency to be minimised."