Pakistan’s top court urges AI guidelines to improve judicial efficiency

Pakistan’s Supreme Court urged the authorities on Friday to develop clear guidelines for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in courtrooms. However, it warned that AI should never replace human reasoning or judicial independence.

Authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the 18-page judgment stressed that while AI has the potential to ease case backlogs and enhance efficiency, it must remain a “supplementary tool” rather than a substitute for judges.

“The promise and potential of AI to enhance the efficiency and working of the justice system cannot be ignored any longer,” the judgment said. “But it cannot replicate the moral, ethical, and empathic reasoning that lies at the heart of judging.”

The ruling came in a rent dispute but expanded to address broader judicial reforms, particularly delays and systemic inefficiencies in the lower courts.

Citing constitutional guarantees of fair and expeditious justice under Articles 10A and 37(d), the court said that AI—if used with care—could help uphold those rights. It specifically pointed to smart legal research, automated case allocation, and drafting support as areas where AI could assist judges.

ChatGPT, Judge-GPT, and global trends

The judgment mentioned growing global interest in commercial AI platforms such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and DeepSeek. It noted how judges in countries like Colombia and the U.S. have already used AI for legal drafting.

In Pakistan, around 1,500 district court judges have reportedly used “Judge-GPT”, an AI tool tailored to local law and developed in partnership with ETH Zurich.

According to the court, early observations suggest Judge-GPT has improved case law research and drafting efficiency — though judges are expected to verify all references and remain ethically vigilant.

AI’s promise—and peril

While praising AI’s potential to streamline routine tasks, the judgment warned of serious risks. These include “hallucinations”, or false citations by AI systems, as well as a lack of transparency in how some models reach conclusions.

The court noted a 58% hallucination rate in legal outputs by GPT-4 in one study and emphasized that judges should adopt a “trust-but-verify” approach when using AI-generated material.

It also flagged dangers such as automation bias, unfair influence in decision-making, and the replication of existing societal biases in AI training data.

“AI systems must not influence judicial reasoning by embedding latent demographic or ideological biases,” the order cautioned.

Lessons from abroad

The ruling highlighted how countries like China, Kazakhstan, Slovakia, and Brazil have already adopted AI systems to randomly assign court cases or filter filings based on complexity.

China’s “Smart Courts,” Kazakhstan’s automated case distribution, and Europe’s randomized assignment systems were cited as models that improve transparency and reduce judge shopping.

Pakistan’s judiciary should also consider such reforms, the court said, especially to reduce discretion in case assignments and to prevent favoritism.

Call for national guidelines

The court recommended that the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee, together with the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, develop a comprehensive framework to regulate AI use in courts.

“These must delineate clear boundaries, ensuring that AI is used only as a facilitative tool and never in a manner that compromises human judicial autonomy, constitutional fidelity, or public trust,” the judgment stated.

The court emphasized the need for balance: AI may help modernize Pakistan’s judiciary, but must never overtake the conscience-driven role of judges.

‘AI can aid access, consistency and early case disposal’

Advocate Hafiz Ehsan Khokhar welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling artificial intelligence a valuable tool for Pakistan’s judicial system. “Over 100 countries have already integrated AI into their legal frameworks,” he noted, citing examples like the U.S., U.K., India, China, Australia and several African nations.

He said AI offers significant benefits such as greater accessibility, consistency, innovation and faster case disposal. However, he stressed the need to ensure fairness and transparency: “It should be clear that AI is assisting an independent judicial mind, not replacing it.”

Khokhar also urged the Supreme Court to launch a structured framework through the Law and Justice Commission, high courts, Ministry of Law, and Ministry of IT.

“With a population of over 240 million and hundreds of thousands of pending cases, this is the right moment for a coordinated framework to bring early decisions and reduce the backlog,” he said.

He called the court’s judgment a “solid beginning” and an official endorsement of what had previously been informal experimentation.

Need for public debate

Salman Mansoor, secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, called the move a progressive step but emphasized the need for public debate. “While technology brings many benefits, in Pakistan we haven’t even had a proper conversation on this.”

He raised fundamental ethical concerns: “AI is reasoning by a machine. But when we talk about justice, we’re entrusting a human being who considers not just logic, but feelings, morality, and equity.” Mansoor questioned whether machines can truly understand justice, stressing that even in other countries, the rollout of AI in courts is limited because of these moral challenges.

He welcomed the start of the debate and said he looked forward to how the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee would deliberate on the issue.

‘We support anything that speeds up justice’

Mian Rauf Atta, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said bar associations had already held discussions with institutions like NUST and others to explore the integration of technology into justice delivery.

“Artificial intelligence and related tools can improve the efficiency of the judicial system,” he said, adding that the legal fraternity supports all measures that expedite justice and provide timely relief to the people.

“We should also aim for a paperless court system,” he added, noting that this would further reduce delays and streamline court processes.