JUDICIARY IN PAKISTAN AND AI TECHNOLOGY:
USES, ABUSES, RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LIAQAT ALI KHOSO
1st Additional District and Sessions Judge/MCTC, Khairpur.
00923337120634
[email protected]
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9814-9327
Abstract
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into Pakistan's judicial system represents one of the most significant transformations in the nation's legal history. This article examines the evolving relationship between AI technology and the Pakistani judiciary, tracing the trajectory from the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed to the subsequent issuance of National Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Institutions by the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee. Drawing upon empirical evidence from the nationwide rollout of JudgeGPT—which demonstrated a 6.3% increase in case disposals across 118 courts—this article critically analyses the legitimate uses, potential abuses, regulatory restrictions, and institutional recommendations concerning AI in judicial functions. It argues that while AI offers unprecedented opportunities to address the chronic backlog of over 2.22 million pending cases, its deployment must be carefully calibrated to preserve judicial independence, constitutional fidelity, and public trust and avoid the bias of any kind. The article concludes with concrete recommendations for judicial officers, particularly those serving in district and sessions courts, on the responsible adoption of AI tools within the existing constitutional and ethical framework.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Pakistani Judiciary, Constitutional Law, Algorithmic Bias, Access to Justice, JudgeGPT, Judicial Independence, prompt engineering, Legal Ethics, Data Privacy, Speedy Justice, back-log
Introduction
The courtroom, as the Supreme Court of Pakistan recently declared, is "not a site for algorithmic governance but a space for reasoned, principled deliberation." This pronouncement, delivered in April 2025, captured both the promise and the peril of Artificial Intelligence in the administration of justice. On one hand, Pakistan's judiciary stands burdened by approximately 2.22 million pending cases nationwide which is a backlog that has turned the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, into an aspiration rather than a reality for millions of litigants. On the other hand, the rapid proliferation of AI tools, from ChatGPT to custom-built judicial assistants like JudgeGPT, presents an unprecedented opportunity to expedite proceedings, enhance legal research, and improve administrative efficiency.
The question facing Pakistan's judiciary is not whether to embrace AI, but how to do so without sacrificing the fundamental principles that underpin the rule of law. This article, written from the perspective of a serving Trial courts Judge, seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of AI's role in Pakistan's judicial system. It examines the constitutional and legal foundations for AI adoption, surveys current applications and empirical evidence, identifies potential abuses and risks, analyses the emerging regulatory framework, and offers practical recommendations for judicial officers navigating this technological transformation.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. The Right to Speedy Justice as a Constitutional Imperative
The juridical foundation for integrating AI into Pakistan's judicial system rests upon two constitutional provisions. Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, while Article 37 (d) commits the State to securing "inexpensive and expeditious justice." In Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah grounded the Court's endorsement of AI precisely in these constitutional mandates. The said case referred to a tenancy dispute that languished for seven years before reaching the Supreme Court for adjudication. The case itself exemplified the chronic delays that plague the justice system of Pakistan. The Court observed that when cases take years to reach final disposal, the right to a fair trial is effectively negated. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has noted that the inordinate delay of seven years in the final disposal of the case infringed upon the rights of the parties, emphasising the need to adapt to technological advancements to curtail such delays. This reasoning established that the adoption of AI is not merely a matter of administrative convenience but a constitutional obligation flowing from Articles 10-A and 37(d) of the Constitution, 1973.
B. The Definitional Challenge: Who is a "Judge"?
A more fundamental question concerns whether AI systems can legally perform judicial functions under Pakistan's existing legal framework. The Constitution of Pakistan defines a "Judge" as any person acting as a Judge of a court. The Pakistan Penal Code further defines "Judge" as "every person who is officially designated or empowered by law to give a definitive judgment in legal proceedings of a civil or criminal nature." These definitions are unequivocally anthropocentric—they contemplate human beings, not algorithms, as the bearers of judicial authority in the court of law delivering a judgment. The Supreme Court in Ishfaq Ahmed case, supra drew a clear boundary: AI may assist, but it cannot substitute human reasoning. The Court held that "automated decisions may not find any legitimacy under the existing laws." This conclusion is constitutionally sound. A machine cannot take an oath, cannot be held accountable in the same manner as a judicial officer, and cannot exercise the discretion that lies at the heart of adjudication. The AI tool has also no human feelings to note from the trial during recording of evidence and demeanor of witnesses and accused, if examined on oath. The definitional barrier, therefore, serves as an inherent constitutional restriction on the delegation of judicial functions to AI tools
C. Procedural and Evidentiary Considerations
Beyond the constitutional definition, significant procedural questions arise. The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 governs the admissibility of evidence in Pakistani courts. Can AI-generated outputs be treated as evidence? Can a judge rely upon an AI-generated legal summary without independent verification and reference to statutes and existing precedents so also available record on file of the case? The Supreme Court has answered these questions implicitly by requiring that judges "must always verify AI outputs, ensuring that all decisions remain transparent, explainable, and contestable." The principle of audi alteram partem (hearing the other side prior to decision) further complicates AI integration. If an AI tool is used in judicial reasoning, should the parties be informed? Should they have the opportunity to challenge the AI's conclusions? These questions remain largely unresolved in Pakistan's legal framework, though emerging international best practices suggest that disclosure of AI usage in judicial work should be mandatory. As one commentator has noted that use of AI in judicial work should be disclosed, including the tool used, the purpose of use, and whether any court data was uploaded or processed. The prompt engineering is one of the most important stage, in seeking the assistance from AI. Since the result would change if the prompt is given in any other words that that of first prompt.
USES OF AI IN THE PAKISTANI JUDICIARY
Case Management and Administrative Efficiency
The most immediate and uncontroversial application of AI in Pakistan's judiciary lies in case management and administrative functions. The National Judicial Analytics Dashboard, launched on 10th February 2026 by the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan with technical assistance from the National Information Technology Board, represents a significant step toward data-driven judicial administration. This platform consolidates judicial data, integrates information across the justice sector, and enables real-time tracking of case disposal, backlog trends, and institutional performance. The Supreme Court has introduced digital case filings, e-notices supported by WhatsApp, SMS, and email alerts, and upgraded digital infrastructure in Islamabad and branch registries to facilitate online hearings. Video link services have been extended to high courts, and Model Civil and Criminal Courts are functioning with time-bound trials. These technological reforms, while not exclusively AI-driven, create the foundational infrastructure upon which more sophisticated AI applications can be built.
Proposals have been advanced for an AI-enabled National Judicial Case Management System, under which every case would receive a unique digital identity from filing to final adjudication, enabling automated scheduling, record transfer, judicial statistics, and public access to case information online. Such systems promise to reduce the administrative burden on judicial officers, allowing them to focus on substantive adjudication rather than logistical coordination.
B. Legal Research and Drafting Support
The most significant AI application in Pakistan's judiciary to date is JudgeGPT, a customised chatbot built on OpenAI's GPT-4 family of models and adapted for use in Pakistan. The Federal Judicial Academy beta-tested the tool intensively before deploying it for use by 1,559 judges serving across 118 courts nationwide. This deployment covered roughly half of the country's trial judges and 80% of district courts. The Supreme Court has explicitly endorsed AI's role in legal research and drafting. In its landmark ruling, the Court stated that AI can support legal research, generate drafts, and improve language precision. Judges globally have acknowledged using AI for assistance in legal research and drafting, and Pakistan's own Federal Judicial Academy has introduced Judge-GPT to assist judges at district level with case research and drafting under a regulated framework. The empirical evidence from the JudgeGPT rollout is compelling. A nationwide study found that the use of AI resulted in an additional 1,848 cases being resolved per year—an increase of more than 6% over the average. Notably this increase does not appear to come at the expense of reduced quality. The study found that judges who received AI access together with targeted training on the use of the tool were more likely to adopt it, use it more intensively, and continue using it over time also enhancing their professional way of use of AI tools.
Perhaps most significantly, little evidence of systematic changes in pro-Muslim or gender bias in judicial language and noted that judges primarily used the tool for legal research and writing support, with targeted training shifting its use towards bounded support tasks such as text improvement and summarisation, rather than full-text generation. These findings suggest that, when properly implemented with appropriate training, AI can enhance judicial productivity without compromising the quality or fairness of judicial outputs.
C. Predictive Analytics and Case Flow Management
Beyond legal research, AI offers potential in predictive analytics and case flow management. The National Guidelines allow for AI use in predictive analysis and data-driven insights. AI tools can assist in filtering frivolous litigation, streamlining document management, and forecasting timelines for resolution. These applications can help courts allocate resources more efficiently and manage caseloads more effectively. However, predictive analytics in the judicial context must be approached with particular caution. The Supreme Court has warned against "automation bias"—the tendency to defer uncritically to algorithmic outputs. Predictive tools that forecast case outcomes or assess risk must be transparent, explainable, and subject to human oversight. The danger is that such tools, if relied upon without critical scrutiny, could subtly influence judicial decision-making in ways that are difficult to detect or challenge.
D. Linguistic Clarity and Translation
Pakistan's legal system operates in a multilingual environment, with proceedings conducted in English, Urdu, and regional languages. AI tools can assist in improving linguistic clarity, suggesting cleaner formulations without altering substance. The Indian Supreme Court's introduction of Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS) , an AI-based judgment-tagging and translation technology bridging linguistic gaps, offers a model that Pakistan might adapt . AI-powered translation tools could help make judicial decisions more accessible to litigants who are not fluent in English, thereby enhancing transparency and public trust. However, the risks of mistranslation must be carefully managed, and human oversight of AI-generated translations remains essential.
Abuses and Risks of AI in the Judiciary
A. Algorithmic Opacity and the Black Box Problem
The most fundamental challenge posed by AI in judicial settings is opacity which means the inability to trace how an AI system arrives at its output. As the Supreme Court observed, algorithmic opacity refers to "the inability to trace how an AI system arrives at its output. In judicial settings, where every decision must be justified, this is not just a technical flaw; it is a constitutional defect. An unexplained ruling is an unjust ruling." This concern is not merely theoretical. AI systems, particularly large language models, operate through complex neural networks that are inherently difficult to interpret. When a judge relies upon an AI tool for legal research or drafting, the judge must be able to verify the AI's outputs. If the AI has generated a fictitious citation or misstated the law, the judge's decision—and the judge's credibility—may be compromised. The Supreme Court has warned specifically against "AI hallucinations which means AI generates fabricated or incorrect information" and stressed that such tools "must never be viewed as conclusive or infallible." Sometimes, the error in first prompt may result in error in all replies of the AI, in one thread of tasks continued by the user/judge.
The opacity problem is compounded when AI tools are procured from foreign vendors. As noted that many AI tools used informally by lawyers, judges, researchers, and court staff are foreign-built and hosted outside Pakistan. When a judgment or confidential court document is uploaded to a foreign-hosted AI platform, questions of data sovereignty, jurisdiction, and national security arise.
B. Algorithmic Bias
Bias is perhaps the deeper and quieter danger while using AI tools. As the Supreme Court observed that iff the dataset on which the AI is trained encodes structural discrimination, as so many legal datasets inevitably do, then those patterns will be replicated in the AI's outputs. The risk is not simply one of explicit prejudice, but of systemic reinforcement in all prompts. Pakistan's legal datasets, like those of most jurisdictions, are shaped by historical inequalities. If AI systems are trained on precedents that reflect biases—whether based on gender, religion, class, or geography then those biases will be replicated and potentially amplified by the tool, resulting in divergent conclusion which were otherwise not desired by the user. As the scholars noted that predictive technologies and AI in law are prone to replicating the bias of the information they were fed. The geographical dimension of bias is particularly concerning. If most artificial intelligence systems are trained on urban examples, rural litigants might be virtually statistically invisible, widening the gap among communities already marginalized by the rule of law. Pakistan's rural population, which constitutes the majority of the country's citizens, could be systematically disadvantaged by AI systems trained primarily on urban legal data in a given prompt. The judge must be vigilant in such situations and do not blindly follow the reply of AI tool, rather use double check policy of the given data. The National Guidelines acknowledge this risk and incorporate "strong safeguards against bias with emphasis on accountability. However, implementing effective bias mitigation requires ongoing monitoring, diverse training data, and transparent auditing mechanisms that are not yet fully developed in Pakistan. Such improvement are need of the hour in justice system in Pakistan so that maximum benefits may be yielded by the system in dispensation of justice to the masses.
C. Erosion of Judicial Autonomy and Human Judgment
Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan of the Islamabad High Court, has emerged as a prominent voice of caution. In a strongly worded letter to the Islamabad High Court Chief Justice, he expressed "deep concerns about delegating judicial decision-making to artificial intelligence, stating that while AI technology can assist in legal research and case management, it lacks the essential elements of conscience, morality, and independent judgment that define human adjudication." A copy of said letter was also circulated among all judges of the Islamabad High Court, which was addressed to the Chief Justice IHC. Justice Khan warned that "the decisions of robot or computer judges will always remain subject to the programs fed into them from time to time," warning that such systems would inherently lack human conscience and moral insight. He aligned himself with those who oppose AI as a decision-maker, noting that programmable systems cannot form "independent opinions." This concern resonates with the broader international debate about AI in the judiciary. As UNDP has warned, "Artificial intelligence is transforming justice systems across Asia and the Pacific faster than the frameworks meant to govern it." Globally, 67% of countries score below 25 out of 100 on measures of responsible AI governance, highlighting critical gaps in rules covering data protection, accountability, and transparency. Judicial operators already use AI tools in their work, yet only 9% have received any institutional training or guidance. The erosion of judicial autonomy is not merely a philosophical concern. When judges delegate their interpretive responsibilities to AI, they risk becoming mere ratifiers of algorithmic outputs rather than independent adjudicators. The Supreme Court has been explicit on this point: "delegating core adjudicative functions to AI would amount to misconduct and violate due process."
D. Data Privacy and Security Concerns
Pakistan's emerging AI ecosystem faces serious privacy and surveillance challenges and risks. Article 14 of the Constitution 1973 guarantees the right to privacy, and Pakistani courts have ruled that unlawful surveillance violates this right. However, Pakistan still lacks a fully operational data protection regime, as evidenced by the languishing Personal Data Protection Bill 2023 for being passed and promulgated. The risks are substantial. "Without massive infrastructure upgrades, AI handling sensitive case files risks breaches similar to the 2023 district court cyber leaks , potentially violating fundamental privacy rights under Article 14." Confidential judicial material, including sensitive information about litigants, witnesses, and parties, could be exposed to unauthorised access or foreign surveillance. The Supreme Court has addressed these concerns, holding that "any judicial AI must be hosted locally, with full encryption, access controls, and subject to Pakistani data protection regulations." The National Guidelines emphasise data protection as a key priority, with strict standards outlined for safeguarding information regarding litigants and other stakeholders. However, implementing these protections in practice requires significant investment in digital infrastructure, cybersecurity expertise, and regulatory enforcement. As one commentary noted, "Pakistan's legal system suffers from delays, backlogs and limited access to justice. If AI gives wrong advice, who will be held accountable? Can we trust machines with client confidentiality when Pakistan lacks strong data protection laws? These questions demand airtight answers before any move is made to adopt such technologies."
E. Accountability Gaps
The question of accountability is perhaps the most vexing legal challenge posed by AI in the judiciary. If an AI tool provides incorrect legal research that leads to an erroneous judgment, who is responsible? The judge who relied upon the AI? The developer who created the tool? The institution that procured it? The Supreme Court has provided partial guidance: "Judges must always verify AI outputs, ensuring that all decisions remain transparent, explainable, and contestable." This places the ultimate responsibility on the human judge. However, this does not fully resolve the accountability question. If a judge fails to detect an AI hallucination or illusion, is that judicial error or technological failure? The lines of responsibility remain blurred in between two of these regimes. Furthermore, there is "no binding requirement to disclose whether AI has been used in judicial reasoning, legal submissions, translations, or research." This lack of disclosure requirements creates a transparency gap that undermines accountability. If litigants and appellate courts do not know whether AI was used in a judicial decision, they cannot effectively challenge or review the decision.
Restrictions: The Emerging Regulatory Framework
A. The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
The Supreme Court's judgment in Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed, supra, established the foundational principles for AI regulation in Pakistan's judiciary. The Court called upon the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee and the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan to jointly prepare comprehensive guidelines outlining permissible uses of AI in courts.
Key principles mentioned in Ishfaq Ahmed Judgment:-
1. AI as an auxiliary tool: AI must be used "only as a facilitative tool and never in a manner that compromises human judicial autonomy, constitutional fidelity, or public trust in the justice system."
2. Human oversight: "Judges must always verify AI outputs, ensuring that all decisions remain transparent, explainable, and contestable."
3. Core functions reserved for humans: "Core judicial responsibilities must remain exclusively with human judges."
4. No algorithmic governance: "A courtroom is not a site for algorithmic governance but a space for reasoned, principled deliberation."
5. Misconduct warning: "Delegating core adjudicative functions to AI would amount to misconduct and violate due process."
The judgment also identified three specific risks requiring safeguards: opacity, bias, and hallucination. Each of these risks, the Court held, must be addressed through institutional frameworks and individual judicial vigilance.
B. The National Guidelines on AI in Judicial Institutions
On April 29, 2026, the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee approved the National Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Institutions of Pakistan. Developed through an extensive consultative process led by the National Judicial Automation Committee, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar of the Supreme Court, the guidelines establish a clear and principled framework for integrating AI into judicial processes across the country.
The key highlights of the guidelines include:
1. Human-Centric Approach: "AI will assist—not replace—judicial decision-making, ensuring judges remain the ultimate arbiters."
2. Ethical and Transparent Use: Strong safeguards against bias, with emphasis on accountability through explainable systems.
3. Data Protection: Strict adherence to privacy and security standards, with strict standards for safeguarding information regarding litigants and other stakeholders.
4. Practical Applications: Support in case management, legal research, predictive analysis, and document processing.
5. Capacity Building: Structured training for judges and court staff to equip them with skills required to responsibly adopt emerging technologies.
The guidelines align with international best practices while remaining consistent with Pakistan's constitutional and institutional requirements. They also preserve the administrative and judicial autonomy of high courts, allowing each jurisdiction to tailor implementation according to its own needs and capacity.
C. The Proposed Charter on Ethical Use of AI
In September 2025, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Pakistan, Justice Yahya Afridi announced that a "Charter on the Ethical Use of AI" was being finalized to ensure technology supports judicial efficiency without replacing human discretion. The Charter is expected to provide more detailed ethical guidance on AI use in judicial functions, complementing the procedural framework established by the National Guidelines. The Charter is being developed in the context of broader international engagement. The Supreme Court has prepared a memorandum of understanding with the Supreme People's Court of China and is reviewing a draft MoU with the Constitutional Court of Türkiye, with cooperative exchanges also underway with the Supreme Courts of Bangladesh, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Denmark. These international partnerships are intended to bring global best practices into Pakistan's judicial system. It is expected that in near future the dynamics of use of AI in judiciary of Pakistan shall be reshaped and more effectively used.
D. Constitutional and Legal Constraints
Beyond the specific regulatory instruments, several constitutional and legal constraints limit AI's role in the judiciary:
1.Article 10-A (Fair Trial): Any AI use must not undermine the right to a fair trial and due process of law to any party to the litigation.
2. Article 14 (Privacy): AI systems must respect the constitutional right to privacy.
3.Article 37(d) (Speedy Justice): While supporting the objective of expeditious justice, AI must not sacrifice procedural fairness for speed.
4.Definitional constraints: The constitutional and statutory definitions of "Judge" preclude the delegation of core judicial functions to machines.
5.Procedural laws: The Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order all assume human adjudication and do not contemplate AI decision-making.
Recommendations for Judicial Officers
A. Adopt a Principled Approach to AI
The first and most important recommendation for judicial officers is to adopt a principled approach to AI that is grounded in constitutional values and judicial ethics. As the Supreme Court has held, AI should be "welcomed with careful optimism." This means neither rejecting AI out of hand nor embracing it uncritically. Judicial officers should familiarize themselves with the National Guidelines and the emerging Charter on Ethical Use of AI. They should understand the permissible uses of AI i.e. case management, legal research, drafting support, predictive analytics. They should also understand the prohibited uses of AI i.e. delegation of core adjudicative functions.
B. Verify All AI Outputs
The Supreme Court has been unequivocal: "Judges must always verify AI outputs, ensuring that all decisions remain transparent, explainable, and contestable." This verification obligation is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive constitutional duty.
When using AI for legal research, judges should independently verify citations and legal principles. When using AI for drafting, judges should review and revise the output to ensure it accurately reflects their independent reasoning. When using AI for predictive analytics, judges should treat the output as suggestive rather than determinative.
C. Maintain Judicial Independence
AI tools are aids, not substitutes, for judicial reasoning. These tools are used to assist but not to decide or determine the fate. Judicial officers must resist the temptation to delegate their interpretive responsibilities to algorithms mechanically. The final judgment must reflect the judge's independent assessment of the facts, the law, and the equities of the case which a tool cannot properly do. This requires intellectual discipline and professional confidence. AI-generated drafts should be treated as starting points, not final products. AI-generated legal research should be verified against primary sources. AI-generated predictions should be subjected to critical scrutiny strictly and double check policy.
D. Ensure Transparency
Transparency is essential to maintaining public trust in the justice system. Judicial officers should be transparent about their use of AI tools. At a minimum, this means documenting when AI has been used and for what purpose. Ideally, it means disclosing AI usage to the parties and providing them with an opportunity to challenge or question AI-generated inputs. The current absence of binding disclosure requirements should not be interpreted as a license for secrecy. Judicial officers should err on the side of transparency, recognizing that public trust in the judiciary depends on the perception—and the reality—of fair and accountable decision-making.
E. Prioritize Data Security
Confidential judicial material should never be entered into consumer AI tools or foreign-hosted platforms unless expressly authorised under a secure framework. Judicial officers should ensure that any AI tools they use are procured through contracts that clearly define data residency, retention, deletion, audit logs, encryption, subcontracting, breach reporting, and access rights. This is particularly important for district and sessions court judges who handle sensitive criminal cases, family disputes, and other matters involving confidential information. The 2023 district court cyber leaks serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of inadequate data security.
F. Pursue Targeted Training
The empirical evidence from the JudgeGPT rollout demonstrates that targeted training significantly enhances the effectiveness of AI tools. Judges who received AI access together with targeted training were more likely to adopt it, use it more intensively, and continue using it over time. Training shifted AI use towards tasks where language models were likely to be more useful, such as text improvement, and away from more open-ended legal queries where responses are more costly to verify. Judicial officers should actively pursue training opportunities offered by the Federal Judicial Academy, high courts, and other institutions. They should also engage in peer learning, sharing experiences and best practices with colleagues. The goal should be to develop the digital literacy and critical judgment necessary to use AI tools effectively and responsibly.
G. Exercise Caution with Predictive Analytics
Predictive analytics tools that forecast case outcomes or assess risk pose particular dangers. Such tools may be based on biased datasets, may be opaque in their operations, and may subtly influence judicial decision-making in ways that are difficult to detect or challenge. Judicial officers should approach predictive analytics with particular caution. Such tools should be treated as suggestive rather than determinative. Their outputs should be subjected to critical scrutiny and verified against independent sources. Judges should be alert to the risk of "automation bias"—the tendency to defer uncritically to algorithmic outputs.
H. Engage with the Regulatory Process
The regulatory framework for AI in Pakistan's judiciary is still evolving. The National Guidelines provide a foundational framework, but many details remain to be worked out through practice, precedent, and further institutional guidance. Judicial officers should actively engage with this regulatory process. They should provide feedback to the National Judicial Automation Committee, the Law and Justice Commission, and the Federal Judicial Academy on their experiences with AI tools. They should contribute to the development of best practices and ethical standards. They should participate either physically or through online programs/webinars, in judicial conferences, workshops, and symposia on AI and the judiciary.
I. Preserve the Human Element
Finally, judicial officers must never lose sight of the human element in justice delivery so that injustice may not occur. Justice, as Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan has reminded us, requires conscience, morality, and independent judgment, which are the qualities that no algorithm can possess ever. Technology can speed up processes, improve efficiency, and enhance access to justice. But it cannot replace the human judge's role in weighing evidence, exercising discretion, and delivering justice with empathy and understanding. As the Supreme Court has held, "the final moral, interpretive, and constitutional responsibility belongs only to the human judge." This is not merely a legal technicality but a profound truth about the nature of justice. Justice is not merely a computational problem to be solved but a human relationship to be nurtured.
Conclusion
Pakistan stands at a critical juncture in the evolution of its judicial system. The integration of AI technology offers unprecedented opportunities to address the chronic backlog of cases, enhance the efficiency of court processes, and improve access to justice for millions of citizens. The empirical evidence from the JudgeGPT rollout—a 6.3% increase in case disposals without compromising quality—demonstrates the transformative potential of AI when properly implemented with targeted training. However, these opportunities come with significant risks. Algorithmic opacity, bias, hallucinations, data privacy concerns, and accountability gaps all threaten to undermine the principles of justice, fairness, and judicial independence that are the foundation of the rule of law. The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed and the subsequent National Guidelines provide a principled framework for navigating these challenges.
For judicial officers, particularly those serving in trial court of district level, the path forward requires a balanced approach. We must embrace AI as a tool to enhance our work, but we must never delegate our core adjudicative responsibilities to algorithms. We must verify all AI outputs, maintain our independence, ensure transparency, prioritize data security, pursue training, exercise caution with predictive analytics, engage with the regulatory process, and always preserve the human element in justice delivery.
The courtroom, as the Supreme Court has reminded us, "is not a site for algorithmic governance but a space for reasoned, principled deliberation." AI can assist in that deliberation, but it cannot replace it. The final responsibility—the moral, interpretive, and constitutional responsibility—belongs to the human judge. This is not a limitation to be overcome but a principle to be cherished at any cost. As we move forward into an AI-enabled future, let us remember that technology serves justice, not the other way around. Let us bring the Munshis—the clerks, the record-keepers, the human elements of our justice system—with us into the future. And let us ensure that the integration of AI into Pakistan's judiciary strengthens, rather than undermines, the constitutional guarantees of fair trial, due process, and access to justice that are the birthright of every Pakistani citizen, particularly the litigant public.
References
1.Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed, (Supreme Court of Pakistan).
2. National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee, National Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Institutions of Pakistan (approved 57th meeting, April 29, 2026).
3. Supreme Court of Pakistan, Landmark Ruling on AI Regulation in Legal System (April 11, 2025).
4. Mehmood, S., Goessmann, C., & Ash, E., Courts of Tomorrow: Evidence from a Nationwide Rollout of Generative AI (2026).
5. UNDP, The Algorithm in the Courtroom (2026).
6. UNESCO, Global Toolkit on AI and the Rule of Law for the Judiciary.
7. Shah, S. M., & Zarkoon, S. M., Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decisions: A Comparative Legal Study of Risks and Reforms in Pakistan (2025).
8. Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Technology Symposium 2025 (2025).
9. Supreme Court of Pakistan, National Judicial Analytics Dashboard Launch (February 10, 2026).
10. Federal Judicial Academy, JudgeGPT Deployment (2025-2026).
11. Najam-us-Saqib v. Federation of Pakistan et al. (2023/2024), Islamabad High Court (W.P. No. 1894/2023)
12. Digital Rights Foundation, 2023
13. Bibi Khadija Siddiqui, 'AI and judiciary' daily Dawn October 17, 2025. https://www.dawn.com/news/1949467
14. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2571019/ihc-judge-warns-against-robot-judges
15. https://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/resources/undp-asia-pacific-risks-widening-justice-gaps-without-action-ai?individual=1&field_keywords_target_id=rule%20of%20law
16. https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/5090/privacy-international-raises-concerns-regarding-pakistans-personal-data
17. https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.p._1010_l_2022.pdf
18.https://www.ljcp.gov.pk/SiteImage/Misc/files/National%20Guidelines%20for%20Use%20of%20AI%20in%20Judicial%20Institutions%20-%20BOOKLET%20(2)(1).pdf
|