This study addresses the constitutional dilemma posed by algorithmic justice within the Egyptian legal order. It posits that AI applications in criminal justice, particularly predictive policing and risk assessments, are irreconcilable with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Constitutional Court. These technologies effectively revive a judicially invalidated "philosophy of suspicion" by creating a "crime of digital suspicion" based on probability, not a material act, thereby violating the principle of legality. Furthermore, they erode the presumption of innocence through statistical inference, nullify the individualization of punishment by stripping judicial discretion in favor of pattern-based classifications, and breach fair trial guarantees due to algorithmic opacity. To resolve this, the research advocates for a risk-based regulatory framework, applying the principle of proportionality to prohibit systems that infringe on the essence of rights and subject high-risk systems to stringent ex-ante controls. This ensures the supremacy of constitutional principles and protects the judiciary's discretionary power. This approach reframes the debate from a binary of innovation versus rights to one of constitutionally compliant innovation. It argues that the true measure of judicial modernization lies not in technological adoption per se, but in its subordination to constitutional mandates. Ultimately, the research provides constitutional grammar for technological integration, ensuring that modernization reinforces, rather than subverts, the rule of law.