The Supreme Court called for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve legal and institutional efficiency.
“We strongly recommend that the National Judicial Committee (preparation of policies) in collaboration with the Pakistan law and justice committee plans to draw up complete directives on authorized AI uses within the judiciary,” said an 18 -page judgment written by judge Syed Mnsoor Ali Shah while hearing a rent case.
“These must delimit clear borders, ensuring that AI is used only as a facilitation tool and never in a way that compromises human judicial autonomy, constitutional fidelity or public confidence in the judicial system. Judgement.
A Supreme Court division bench led by judge Shah notes that AI must be welcomed with careful optimism. “It can rationalize legal functions, reduce delays and extend access to legal knowledge. But he cannot reproduce moral, ethical and empathetic reasoning which is at the heart of judgment. ”
“The courts must therefore pursue an integration calibrated exploiting the effectiveness of the AI without abandoning the conscience, independence and humanity that justice requires,” said order.
The court said that it was urgent to examine the systemic causes of these delays and to design court management systems and innovative cases, in particular at the level of the judicial power of the district, where most of these disputes come and where the pressure of the duration of cases is most strongly felt.
Although structural reforms are essential and require continuing with vigor, the current crisis obliges immediate and pragmatic innovation. In the overloaded courts of Pakistan, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) presents a promising path towards operational reform, provided that its adoption remains based on constitutional limits of principle.
Under articles 10a and 37 (d) of the Constitution, the right to just and rapid justice must not be made illusory. In this constitutional framework, the thoughtful adoption of AI can serve as a viable instrument for access to justice in a timely manner and to alleviate systemic arrears.
The court said that AI, when deployed within the limits of principle, has significant potential to improve judicial and institutional productivity and efficiency.
Its role is not to replace human arbitration but to complete and support judicial functions, in particular in the fields where the judges themselves strengthen expertise.
Key applications may include: (i) Intelligent legal research: IA tools can quickly deal with large legal databases to extract precedents, statutory provisions and learned comments, providing judges with appropriate and contextually rich legal material.
Intelligent legal research is an emerging discipline that applies AI Technologies1 to improve the precision and efficiency of judicial research. The courts around the world have adopted such platforms, recognizing that they discover additional sources and ideas completing human research efforts.
The court declared that the right to a fair trial before a competent, independent and impartial judge is a fundamental principle of the regular procedure. The AI should not overshadow the basic guarantee of judicial autonomy.
Although AI has the potential to improve the consistency and efficiency of legal processes, it also involves the risk of introducing biases and limiting judicial discretion. This Court stresses that equity and transparency must also apply to decisions assisted by AI, in accordance with article 14 of the International Alliance of Civil and Political Rights39 and the General Commentary No. 3240 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
The Court notes that if the integration of AI into the judicial process offers promising pathways for reform as well as serious limitations, we must remain aware that this evaluation is carried out today.
The rapid advancement of AI technologies, their applications and their potential consequences within the judicial system always take place and can over time on the gaps identified above.
We hold on to the intersection of innovation and tradition. In order for any legal system to remain just and just in the AI era, certain basic universal values must be preserved as non -negotiable ethical foundations.
First and foremost, human dignity and compassion must remain central, ensuring that algorithms do not prevail over mercy or individualized consideration in judgments. The principles of equity and anti-discrimination must be wired in AI systems to prevent the replication of historical biases, guaranteeing equal treatment under the law.
The rule of law must always prevail over the state of the data, human judges retaining the ultimate authority to interpret the evolution of legal and moral standards.
Regular procedure protections, including the presumption of innocence and the right to deal with 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 a simple efficiency.
