The Supreme Court has called for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to increase legal and institutional efficiency.

“We strongly recommend that the national judicial (political decision committee), in collaboration with the Law and Justice Commission for Pakistan, consider developing extensive guidelines for the permitted use of AI in the judiciary,” said an 18-page judgment written by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah while hearing a rent.

“These must delineate clear boundaries, which ensures that AI is used only as a facilitative tool and never in a way that compromises on human legal autonomy, constitutional belief or public confidence in the legal system. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to both the law and the justice commission of Pakistan and the national law (Political Giving Committee for the preparation of guidelines for the preparation of guidance to regulate this. And trial, ”read.

A division bench of the pointed right led by Justice Shah notes that AI should be welcomed with careful optimism. “It can streamline legal functions, reduce delays and expand access to legal knowledge. But it cannot repeat the moral, ethical and empathic reasoning that lies in the heart of judging.”
“Thus, courts must pursue a calibrated integration that exploits AI’s effectiveness without surrendering the conscience, independence and humanity that justice requires,” the order says.

The court said there is an urgent need to investigate the systemic causes of such delays and devise innovative court and case management systems, especially at the level of the district system, where the majority of such disputes originate and where the pressure of the case’s pendency is most urgently felt.

While structural reforms are a must and require to continue with power, the current crisis is forcing immediate and pragmatic innovation. In Pakistan’s overloaded courts, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a promising path to operational reform, provided that the adoption remains grounded in principle constitutional limits.

According to Articles 10a and 37 (d) of the Constitution, the right to justice and rapid justice must not be made illusory. Within this constitutional framework, the thoughtful adoption of AI can serve as a viable instrument for access to timely justice and relieve systemic backlog.

The court said that, when it was deployed within principled limits, AI has significant potential to increase legal and institutional productivity and efficiency.

Its role is not to replace human judgment, but to supplement and support legal functions, especially in areas where the judges themselves build expertise.

Key applications may include: (i) Smart Legal Research: AI tools can quickly process huge legal databases to extract relevant precedent, statutory provisions and scientific comments, giving judges timely, contextual legal material.

Smart legal research is a growing discipline that uses AI Technologies1 to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of legal research. Courts around the world have adopted such platforms, recognizing that they reveal additional sources and insights that complement human research efforts.

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

While AI has the potential to improve the consistency and efficiency of legal processes, it also carries the risk of introducing pre -income and limiting judicial estimates. This court emphasizes that justice and transparency must apply equal to AI-Assisted decisions in accordance with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights39 and General Comment No. 3240 in the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The court notes that although the integration of AI into the legal process offers promising opportunities for reform along with serious restrictions, we must remain aware that this assessment is made today.

The rapid development of AI technologies, their uses and their potential consequences within the legal system still unfolds and can over time overcome the gaps identified above.

We stand at the intersection of innovation and tradition. In order for any legal system to remain fair and just in the age of AI, certain core universal values ​​must be preserved as non-converting ethical foundations.

First of all, human dignity and compassion must remain central, ensuring that algorithms never disregard mercy or individualized consideration in judgments. Fairness and anti-discrimination principles must be attached to AI systems to prevent the replication of historical parties, which guarantees equal treatment under the law.

The rule of law must always prevail over the data port, where human judges retain the ultimate authority to interpret developing legal and moral standards.

Protection of proper process, including presumption of innocence and the right to confront evidence, cannot be compromised by automation.

Finally, the system must maintain space for restorative justice and rehabilitation and acknowledge that punishment must serve societal healing rather than just efficiency.