Critical Examination of the Problem Statement and Literature Gaps

The justice systems are still behind even as computers acquire skills to identify suspects among the masses. Computers crunch numbers to forecast trouble spots - but humans make sluggish laws to operate fast technology. Imagine an inflexible court that confronts algorithms, rulebooks that are even older than the internet. In the event code is misidentified, who is at fault? There are no definite answers. The instruments busied in the absence of supervision. The judgments that were once determined by eyes and notebooks are now based on concealed mathematics. Without evidence trust is established. Complicated designs contain errors. Doom machines are subject to the laws of men. Advancement is galloping forward - legislators are mired in paper. Most overlooked? A good system to ensure algorithms behave in line with the Constitution, as humans do. Research - national and international - demonstrates that there are gaps, not just in legislation but in the real evidence of fairness results. It is not something which is going to break all at a sudden: high tech equipment with outdated systems can go wrong. This is significant and, in the absence of regulation, it is fair to say that using AI in investigations will most likely breach the very basic Indian Constitutional provisions—Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the constitution. The absence of movement without warning; constitutional law can be the element of sanity between order and freedom.