I would like to ask you about the digitalization of judicial proceedings. Web conferencing was introduced in oral arguments in civil cases last year. As for criminal proceedings, the proposed amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which includes the digitalization of arrest warrants, was approved by the Cabinet in February, and the discussion is ongoing. Would you please tell us your thoughts on future challenges and expectations?

I understand that legislation has been developed regarding digitalization in the fields of civil and domestic affairs. I am further aware that in the field of criminal affairs, the proposed amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure has been submitted to the Diet and is now under review.
Even if court proceedings are digitalized, the role of the judiciary, which is to provide high-quality judicial services and to ensure the rule of law reaches every corner of society, remains unchanged. We aim to improve access to justice by measures including developing a system that is easy for the public to understand and use, and at the same time streamline court proceedings and increase their efficiency through digitalization, so as to better ensure fair and speedy trials. We hope to offer the benefits of digitalization to a wider public.
In particular, in civil cases, the amended Code of Civil Procedure is scheduled to be fully implemented by May 2026 in order to completely digitalize civil proceedings. As for the Supreme Court, the Rules of Civil Procedure and other rules were amended in September 2024, and the Supreme Court has been diligently working to develop a system that enables documents to be submitted online and case records to be digitized. Preparations are also underway at courts across Japan to facilitate the implementation of this system. With the cooperation of bar associations and lawyers from all over Japan in the development process, we will comprehensively review the state of judicial practices and administer court proceedings in a way appropriate for the digital age. We are confident that these efforts will result in the provision of high-quality judicial services.

Recently, court cases about diversity issues have been increasingly in the spotlight, such as cases regarding gender transition and same-sex marriage. The decisions made by courts and judges play a crucial role in influencing our society’s future. Would you please tell us your thoughts on what perspectives you expect the courts and judges to adopt and how they should respond to the views of the parties involved?

I will only answer your question in general terms, not about individual cases.
People's personal values and behavior patterns have diversified, and we expect that unprecedented cases will continue to be filed, some of which could significantly impact our society.
However, this does not mean that when dealing with such cases, we should approach them with a special mindset or a specific sense of purpose. We listen carefully to the arguments of the parties involved, just as we do in all other cases. Nevertheless, as these cases often present new perspectives and issues, they require a high degree of competence on the part of the judges. It is essential for judges not only to analyze and examine cases from a legal point of view, but also to have an understanding of the social background and context of the cases. Additionally, they should be able to make well-balanced decisions from multiple perspectives. The point here is that the overall capability of a judge is put to the test. To deal with these cases appropriately, judges are expected to gain better insights proactively and independently through both their professional responsibilities and personal lives. As part of the judicial administration, we hope to support judges in their initiatives through a variety of training programs and other schemes.

I would like to ask you about appeals for retrials. Some have pointed out the prolonged length of proceedings. I understand that an opportunity was provided at the Legal Training and Research Institute in February this year for judges from various locations in Japan to discuss the challenges they face in judicial practice. Would you please tell us your thoughts on how you perceive the current state of retrials and challenges surrounding them?

First of all, I want to make it clear once more that I will only answer this question in general terms, not about individual cases.
Generally speaking, the number of appeals for retrials is not necessarily substantial, and the nature and content of such appeals vary from case to case. This makes it difficult for the courts to accumulate and share their experiences of dealing with appeals for retrial. It is my understanding that, in order to address this situation, a study group was set up at the Legal Training and Research Institute to facilitate the review of appeals for retrials, where the members shared views on ideas for case management and the challenges involved.
Needless to say, appeals for retrials must be processed appropriately and promptly. I believe it is extremely important for judges who are responsible for executing proceedings to discover the challenges in case management and to innovate solutions to such challenges, based on their experiences of dealing with appeals for retrials lodged in the past, and to widely share their insights.

I have a question about the issue regarding the system allowing spouses to keep their own surname. This issue is attracting attention because the introduction of the system may soon be debated in the Diet. Public interest in the issue seems to be growing.
I believe the Supreme Court has already expressed its views on this issue. Could you please tell us your thoughts on the issue as far as possible? I would also like to know how you see the current situation.

Since you said "as far as possible" in your question, I will answer your question as far as I can. I am afraid I have very few comments to make about this issue. One of the reasons why I cannot answer the question is that the Grand Bench has already made a decision on the matter. Of course, I am aware that the issue is attracting a great deal of public interest as well. Please understand that I am not in a position to make any further comments on such a particular issue at this time.

This is quite an abstract question, but it is about Article 14 of the Constitution of Japan. It has been 80 years since the end of World War II, and various forms of discrimination and inequality exist in our society. What do you think of the role that the principle of equality under the Constitution has played? Would you please tell us your thoughts, if you have any, on how equality should be defined in modern times, where our values have diversified, or how it should be interpreted or considered?

This is a very complex and wide-ranging issue, and it is not easy to give a prompt answer. I think Article 14 of the Constitution is one of the constitutional provisions that encompasses a broad range of issues. As I mentioned in my earlier address, it is true that Japan's economy and society have changed significantly over the last 80 years, and I think the role of Article 14 has probably changed during that period as well. However, all I can say is that it would be difficult for me as a judge to give a definitive answer as to how Article 14 would be understood, interpreted, and applied in a specific case, unless I were personally involved in that specific case. That is all I can say at the moment.

This is a rather specific question, but an Upper House election is scheduled for this summer. In the ruling made by the Supreme Court's Grand Bench after the previous Upper House election, a majority of its justices said the election was constitutional, while some other justices said it was unconstitutional, and the judgment also referred to the need for legislative measures. However, nothing has changed since then, and the next election is due to be held soon. Considering the Supreme Court's power to determine the constitutionality of laws, how do you view this situation? I would appreciate it if you would tell us your thoughts, if you have any.

This is a specific issue, and legal action may be taken at some point in the future. Therefore, I decline to comment on this issue at this point in time.

My question is very abstract and may be difficult to answer, but I think that quite a lot of Japanese people do not feel they are familiar with the Constitution. As the Chief Justice, to what extent do you think they are familiar with the Constitution, what do you think should be done to make them feel familiar with it, and how would you like them to see it? Could you please tell us your thoughts on this matter, if you have any?

Before I answer your question, I suppose we have to assume in what kind of situation and where each and every citizen of Japan would actually feel familiar with the Constitution. To put it differently, I do not think it is necessarily correct to assume that people are happy to go about their everyday lives with a full knowledge of the Constitution. For example, they lead their daily lives, knowing this matter is stipulated in Article ABC of the Constitution or that matter is covered in Article XYZ, or something like that. I think the question here is whether there is an environment where people are assured that the Constitution is accessible to them and is a useful tool to them if a legal issue or a problem requiring them to seek legal remedies arises. Therefore, this matter may concern legal practitioners, rather than the public. The real question is whether there is a social system in place that ensures such legal remedies are readily available to those who need them. To answer your first question, if I were to be asked whether it would be ideal for people to go about their everyday lives with a constant awareness of the Constitution, I would say that might not always be the case. I rather think the real questions are these. Are people aware that their lives and jobs are protected by various laws and regulations, including the Constitution? Do they feel assured that, if their lives or jobs are violated, remedies will be readily available to them? Can our society support these assurances? In my opinion, these are the real questions.

You have answered the question about court cases surrounding diversity issues. My first question is: What do you think the public expects from the Supreme Court or other courts when such a trial is held? What thoughts do you think the public has? How do the courts acknowledge the thoughts of the people? I also have another question. You mentioned earlier that judges are expected to gain better insights proactively and independently, and you would provide support to them. In your opinion, what can the Supreme Court do to support judges in their studies?

Regarding your first question, what exactly do you mean by "the thoughts of the people"? What did you have in mind when you asked that question?

What I meant was that it seems that the opinions of diversity advocates, and the opinions of those who take legal action in particular, are more likely to be those of minority groups. I wanted to ask how the courts should respond to the voices of these people and whether it is necessary for the courts to do so.

A trial is the process where a decision is made about the arguments of the parties involved from a legal point of view. I believe the voices of minority groups that you have mentioned will be clear in the arguments made by the petitioner in the case. Therefore, as you have mentioned earlier, it is only natural for the court to listen carefully to the views of those people.
If you meant to ask whether the courts should listen more carefully to the views of those people and take them more seriously, it seems that may pose another question, which is, as the role of the judiciary, how we should perceive the matter in terms of fairness and neutrality. In other words, every case has a party who has filed the petition and a party who opposes it. Our job is to listen to both parties fairly and impartially and make a fair judgment. If you are implying that the courts should pay closer attention to the voices of a specific group of people, I feel that it would cause a slight deviation from the role of the judiciary.
Regarding the question about judges gaining better insights, ultimately, it is up to individual judges' efforts, and they should be left to their own devices. I do not think they should be told what to read or what to do. In fact, I always tell them to use their discretion regarding this. However, that is not all we are doing. At the Legal Training and Research Institute, we not only provide various training programs to learn about case management, but we also have a wider range of programs that can be used to examine a large variety of social issues. By making all efforts to implement these initiatives, we hope to provide support, or more specifically, lateral support. In fact, we are already doing this.

Could you please give us some specific examples of programs used to examine a large variety of social issues?

Unfortunately, I do not have any documents with me at the moment, so I cannot give you a definitive answer. Would you be so kind as to ask me again at another occasion?

This question is not about a specific case, but rather is about how proceedings should be conducted at the Supreme Court. It has been said that hearings and arguments at the Supreme Court should be revitalized and made transparent. When I observed hearings at the Supreme Court or visited its website, I had the impression that easy-to-understand overviews of cases and their issues are provided. Could you please share your thoughts on this matter in your capacity as Chief Justice?

As you may know, we prepare a document called a summary paper about the case during oral argument and the delivery of a judgment at the Supreme Court in an effort to help the courtroom audience better understand the case. Needless to say, this is an initiative that we started to implement to help the public better understand court procedures, and we will continue to do so. Obviously, oral arguments do involve an aspect of seeking the public's understanding, but above all, we listen to the views of the parties involved and their pleadings and arguments, among other things, to enable us to make a final decision about the case or as part of the process of making a final decision. I believe it is up to the panel of justices to decide, on a case-by-case basis, in which case they should listen to oral arguments and how such proceedings should be conducted. In my view, the panel of justices uses its discretion to conduct proceedings. Therefore, I decline to make any further comments on this matter.

You have mentioned that preparations for the digitalization of judicial proceedings are underway. Generative AI has been increasingly used in many industries. What are your thoughts on the use of AI in terms of the administrative work at the courts or the judicial decision-making process?

As you have just mentioned in your question, it is true that AI has begun to have a huge impact on our society, and I have no doubt that the legal work performed by legal professionals such as ourselves will be affected in some way. Using AI to streamline administrative work is indeed quite conceivable. I have been asked this question before, and I have given the same answer. AI inherently poses security risks, and the reliability of its data is often questionable in the first place. There may be potential risks of copyright infringement in some instances. As such, AI has various problematic aspects and challenges that need to be addressed. In my opinion, we should carefully assess these factors, and at the same time, we should also consider using AI as part of our various future procedural reforms as we digitalize court proceedings.
Regarding the other part of the question, which was about using AI in the decision-making process, I have also answered this question before, but to begin with, a world in which the entire decision-making process is replaced by AI would be something like a science fiction world. I wonder whether such a world would be accepted by the public. Leaving this aside, in reality, I do not think it is unfeasible to incorporate AI in the decision-making process. However, we will probably need to examine two aspects. One aspect is whether AI will be somehow incorporated in the judicial decision-making process, and if so, what challenges may arise. I think the other aspect is what the impact will be on the court proceedings due to the use of AI by the parties who are subjected to the judicial decision-making process. Although both of these issues are important, their gravity is quite significant, and we are not sure how the situation will develop at the moment. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor the situation with great interest and caution.