Access to justice is a fundamental component of the rule of law and requires justice systems to be accessible, affordable, timely, fair and non-discriminatory. Despite the existence of formal legal institutions, individuals continue to encounter significant barriers arising from the cost of legal services, procedural complexity, delays, geographical constraints, inadequate legal awareness and limited access to legal assistance. In this context, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly emerging as a technological tool capable of transforming the manner in which legal information, assistance and justice services are delivered. AI-enabled legal research, automated translation and transcription, case-management systems, online dispute resolution and chatbot-based legal assistance may facilitate greater accessibility and efficiency within justice systems. However, the integration of AI into justice delivery also presents substantial legal and ethical concerns. Algorithmic bias, inaccurate or fabricated outputs, inadequate transparency, privacy risks, digital exclusion and difficulties in assigning responsibility for AI-generated outcomes may adversely affect equality, due process and public confidence in judicial institutions. These concerns are particularly significant in developing justice systems, where technological inequalities may create new barriers for individuals who are already disadvantaged. This research examines the potential of AI to strengthen access to justice while critically analysing the risks associated with its deployment in legal and judicial processes. It explores whether AI can contribute to a more inclusive and efficient justice system without compromising fundamental rights, judicial independence and procedural fairness. The paper further considers the need for a human-centred and rights-based regulatory framework that places transparency, accountability, human oversight, privacy and non-discrimination at the centre of AI-assisted justice delivery. The study argues that AI should function as a supportive instrument within the justice system rather than replace human legal judgment and institutional accountability.