Though the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) displays glaring legal discontinuities, AI is quickly changing the fundamentals of justice and penal systems. Existing legislation is unclear on accountability for algorithmic failures, the evidential admissibility of AI-generated outputs, and protections against predictive overreach. These gaps risk undermining fundamental rights while delaying the constitutional promise of speedy trial. This article advances a novel doctrinal model—post-human jurisprudence—that reconceptualizes AI not as a neutral tool but as a regulated procedural actor. It introduces original doctrines such as Kinetic Liberty to limit surveillance of bodily motion in prisons, Blockchain Habeas Corpus to safeguard digital records through immutability and contestability, and Digital Rehabilitative Equity to treat algorithmic access to education as a right rather than a privilege. In judicial practice, innovations like Assisted Judging, Documentary Primacy Rules, and Algorithmic Roster Laws integrate AI into adjudication while constitutionally preserving human oversight. Through comparative insights from Prometea (Argentina) and Abu Dhabi’s case- registration system, the article highlights both efficiency gains and normative risks. The analysis culminates in forward-looking proposals—Layered Liability Grids, Bias Deconstruction Mandates, and Transparency Charters—that embed accountability and fairness in law. Together, these frameworks lay the groundwork for a systemic legal redesign where AI enhances case disposal speed without compromising justice.
M. K. Srinivas (Wed,) studied this question.