In a landmark ruling on the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the judicial system of Pakistan, the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday recommended to develop formal guidelines to regulate its (AI) application.
The ruling called upon the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC) and the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan (LJCP) to deliberate and jointly prepare comprehensive guidelines outlining the permissible uses of AI in the courts across the country.
The 18-page ruling authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, underscores the role of AI as a supportive tool rather than a substitute for human judges, adding that it can enhance efficiency but ‘must be welcomed with careful optimism’.
In the ruling, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah noted that while AI tools such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek etc can significantly enhance judicial capacity, however, they cannot replace human reasoning, discretion, and empathy, which are central to the justice system and it delivery.
The verdict sated that the guidelines must delineate clear boundaries, ensuring that AI is used only as a facilitative tool and never in a manner that compromises or may compromise human judicial autonomy, constitutional fidelity, or public trust in the justice system.
It has been noted in the verdict that judges globally have acknowledged using AI for assistance in legal research and drafting, and AI can support legal research, generate drafts, and improve language precision, but must not be allowed to undermine human autonomy in judicial rulings.
The verdict, while citing global instances, pointed out that judges in the United States, Colombia and Pakistan have already experimented with tools like ChatGPT for drafting decisions, though under strict human oversight.
According to the verdict, Pakistan’s own Federal Judicial Academy (FJA) has introduced ‘Judge-GPT’ to assist around 1,500 district judges with case research and drafting under a regulated framework.
The verdict, however, cautioned against ‘automation biases’ and AI hallucinations, where AI generates fabricated or incorrect information, and stressed that such tools must never be viewed as conclusive or infallible.
The verdict called upon the judges to must always verify AI outputs, ensuring that all decisions remain transparent, explainable, and contestable.
It stated that ‘a courtroom is not a site for algorithmic governance but a space for reasoned and principled deliberation, where delegating core adjudicative functions to AI would amount to misconduct and violate due process.
The ruling recommends that any framework developed must preserve judicial independence, constitutional fidelity, and public trust. The ruling affirmed that AI can help reduce delays and improve administrative efficiency, such as in case’ allocation However, the verdict reiterated that core judicial responsibilities must remain exclusively with human judges.
Justice Shah called the use of AI a ‘promising path to operational reform, provided its adoption remains grounded in principled constitutional limits’.
‘Although AI may yield significant advantages its adoption likewise generates pressing ethical considerations that necessitate rigorous examination, the verdict noted.
‘Therefore, the responsible use of AI in judicial systems must be grounded in a robust framework of constitutional, ethical, and international legal principles’, the verdict added.
The verdict acknowledged that the right to a fair trial before a competent, independent, and impartial judge is a fundamental principle of due process, and that AI ‘must not overshadow the core guarantee of judicial autonomy.’
The written verdict was issued on a case heard on March 13, 2025 by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.