Supreme Court seeks AI use to enhance efficiency

The Supreme Court has called for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance judicial and institutional efficiency.

"We strongly recommend that the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee in collaboration with the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan considers developing comprehensive guidelines on the permissible uses of AI within the judiciary,” says an 18-page judgement authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah while hearing a rent matter.

“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 in the justice system. Let a copy of this judgment be dispatched to both the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan and the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee for preparing guidelines to regulate this emerging intersection of law and AI,” reads the judgement.

A division bench of the apex court led by Justice Shah notes that AI must be welcomed with careful optimism. “It can streamline judicial functions, reduce delays, and expand access to legal knowledge. But it cannot replicate the moral, ethical, and empathic reasoning that lies at the heart of judging.”
"Courts must thus pursue a calibrated integration harnessing AI’s efficiencies without surrendering the conscience, independence, and humanity that justice demands", says the order.

The court said that there is an urgent need to examine the systemic causes of such delays and to devise innovative court and case management systems, particularly at the level of the district judiciary, where the bulk of such disputes originate and where the pressure of case pendency is most acutely felt.

While structural reforms are a must and require to continue with vigour, the present crisis compels immediate and pragmatic innovation. In Pakistan’s overburdened courts, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a promising path to operational reform, provided its adoption remains grounded in principled constitutional limits.

Under articles 10A and 37(d) of the Constitution, the right to fair and expeditious justice must not be rendered illusory. Within this constitutional framework, the thoughtful adoption of AI can serve as a viable instrument for access to timely justice and alleviating systemic backlogs.

The court said that AI, when deployed within principled boundaries, holds significant potential to enhance judicial and institutional productivity and efficiency.

Its role is not to replace human adjudication but to supplement and support judicial functions, particularly in areas where judges themselves build expertise.

Key applications can include: (i) Smart Legal Research: AI tools can rapidly process vast legal databases to extract relevant precedents, statutory provisions, and scholarly commentary, providing judges with timely, contextually rich legal material.

Smart Legal Research is an emerging discipline that applies AI technologies1 to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of judicial research. Courts worldwide have adopted such platforms, recognizing that they uncover additional sources and insights complementing human research efforts.

The court said that the right to a fair trial before a competent, independent, and impartial judge is a fundamental principle of due process. AI must not overshadow the core guarantee of judicial autonomy.

While AI has the potential to improve consistency and efficiency in legal processes, it also carries the risk of introducing biases and limiting judicial discretion. This court emphasizes that fairness and transparency must apply equally to AI-assisted rulings, in alignment with Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights39 and General Comment No. 3240 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The court notes that while the integration of AI in the judicial process offers promising avenues for reform along with serious limitations, we must remain mindful that this assessment is being made today.

The rapid advancement of AI technologies, their applications, and their potential consequences within the judicial system are still unfolding and may with time overcome the gaps identified above.

We stand at the intersection of innovation and tradition. For any justice system to remain fair and just in the age of AI, certain core universal values must be preserved as non-negotiable ethical foundations.

First and foremost, human dignity and compassion must remain central, ensuring that algorithms never override mercy or individualized consideration in judgments. Fairness and anti-discrimination principles must be hardwired into AI systems to prevent the replication of historical biases, guaranteeing equal treatment under the law.

The rule of law must always prevail over the rule of data, with human judges retaining ultimate authority to interpret evolving legal and moral standards.

Due process protections, including presumption of innocence and right to confront evidence cannot be compromised by automation.

Finally, the system must preserve space for restorative justice and rehabilitation, recognizing that punishment should serve societal healing rather than mere efficiency.