The integration of artificial intelligence into Pakistan's judicial system marks a significant development, as the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee issued the National Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI in judicial institutions on April 29, 2026. This move aims to address the country's massive case backlog, which exceeded 2.2 million pending cases in 2025.
AI as an Assistive Tool
The NJPMC emphasizes a human-centric approach, positioning AI as an assistive tool rather than a replacement for judges. The guidelines highlight potential benefits such as reducing routine adjournments and providing quicker access to relevant legal precedents, which could improve efficiency for overburdened courts and litigants waiting years for hearings.
Ethical and Transparency Concerns
Despite the promising outlook, ethical safeguards remain a critical challenge. Pakistan's courts have historically struggled with accountability, as seen in the Pakistan Steel Mills denationalization case, where oversight mechanisms failed. AI systems often operate as "black boxes," making their internal reasoning opaque. This raises concerns under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality, as biased datasets could perpetuate discrimination. The Shirin Munir judgment, which condemned selective enforcement against women, illustrates how algorithmic systems might entrench existing biases.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah recently remarked that AI may "serve the judiciary, but not substitute it," reminding that a court is a moral space, not a machine. This sentiment echoes criticisms of the COMPAS algorithm in the United States, which faced allegations of racial bias in sentencing.
Data Protection and Infrastructure Gaps
Data protection pledges face skepticism due to Pakistan's lack of a fully operational data protection regime, as the Personal Data Protection Bill 2023 remains pending. Without robust infrastructure, AI handling sensitive case files risks breaches similar to the 2023 district court cyber leaks, potentially violating privacy rights under Article 14.
Implementation Challenges
The success of these guidelines hinges on implementation, particularly in lower courts that face severe infrastructural and digital disparities. While higher courts may adapt more quickly, the overall impact will depend on the vigilance of the judiciary, policymakers, and the legal community. Failure could add to the list of unrealized judicial reforms.
Technology may assist justice, but the legitimacy of courts ultimately rests on a firm commitment to constitutionalism, judicial independence, and the rule of law.
